DBC+Transactions+1972+Volume+

Home , Chuckwalla Mountains, Peccary, Quinlan Mountains, Sheep Hole Mountains

PHOTO BY JIM YOAKUM A COMPILATION OF PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE 16TH ANNUAL MEETING, APRIL 5-7, 1972, AT TUCSON, ARIZONA.

Edi toria1 Commi ttee: Charles Hansen , (Chairman) Norman Simmons William Graf Ray Breechbi 11 Jack Helvie Drawings by: Pat Hansen

Special Contributor: U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Nevada Operations Office Las Vegas, Nevada

Copies avai 1abl e by writing the Desert Bighorn Council 1500 N. Decatur Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada 89108 THE KING OF DESERT BEAST

Does the desert have a ki,ng of beasts? Who rules the plains and barren peaks that shimmer in the sun?

Authority is given to many who crawl; as the rattler or the scorpion who mean it when they say "don't tread on me. " But who would give royalty to such as these.

Mountain lion roam the desert edges or prowl across in winter when ics cool. But hers no desert king of beasts because he hasnvr got the guts to stay, Thirst driven beasts at desert water In summer he may retreat to sit express a sort of priority beside some mountain pool. and they -all give way to the herds of collared pig--the peccary. The coyote is a canine con man living off the desert; But pigs is pigs and I can't see Or in some way conning a living giving them the cloak of royalty. from you and me. But would he live as high My vote goes to the most elusive. without us One that most are lucky to even see, it would be interesting to see. The bighorn goes about his The burro overcomes the desert's threat. business in the roughest kind He dominates the toughest habitat, of topography and truly is a desert rat. and even seems to live where But, a choice of him water is a rarity. would not be mine a crown between his ears A king yet he asks no tribute, would be asinine. In fact he only asks to be, far away from you and me.

He only asks that the desert stay the same. Unchanged neither by us nor the creatures we herd, or pet, or tame.

Charles R. Hungerford

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TPANSACTIOES Page

REPORT OF THE FIRST NORTH AMERICAN WILD SHEEP CONFERENCE ...... O.O...... Warren Kelly 1 CENSUS OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP WITH TIME-LAPSE

PHOTOGRAPHY ,...... GDYOO....O.D.o~OD.DDDDDso...... O Jack B, Helvie 3 1971 WILD HORSE AND BURRO ACT ...... Roscoe E. Ferris 9 INTER-SPECIES EMBRYO TRANSFER IN TZE PROFAGATION OF RARE SPECIES OF WILD SHEEP ...... Thomas D. Bunch, Warren C. Foote and J. Juan Spillett WINTER FOOD HABITS OF CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP

IN THE SIERRA NEVADA ...6.0..0000~.00e0.DOoC~~D0.0 David 3. Dunaway THE STATUS OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP ON THE PAPAGO INDIAN RESERVATION ...... e...... David E. Brown HAZITAT OF THE MEXICAN BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE BIG EATCHET MOUNTAINS OF NEW MEXICO ..... Robert D. Jacobsen THE ARIZONA DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP SOCIETY, INC...... Robert D. Carson CONCLUSION OF THE BIGHORN INVESTIGATION I& CALIFORNIA ...... D.D.~.D Richard A. Weaver NEVADA'S DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP STATUS REPORT 1971 ..... Jack R. Cooper DISEASE LOSSES IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP BLACK GAP AREA ...... Tommy L. Hailey PROGRESS REPORT - LAVA RZDS BIZHORN RE-ESTABLTSHMENT ...... James A. Blaisdell A COOPERATIVE EFFORT WITH THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT ...... Daniel F. Schadle DEVELOPMENT OF PERMANENT WILDLIFE WATER SUPPLIES JOSHUA TREE SATIaNAL MONUMENT ...... ?eteu Lo Farry CAPTURE OF FREE-RANGING DESERT SHEEP IN

SONORA, MEXICO c...... D.~....O.OD... Gerald H. Gates FRATERNITY OF THE DESERT SIGHOR??-NEVADA ...... Carl Ciliax

STATUS OF DESERT BLGHORN IN ARIZONA .....,.l..oo....m,.o Paul M. Webb PiAN'S INVASION INTO T'ilE BIGilORNFS HAijlTAi ...... Yaines R. DeForge dBSi2ISVATiONS TAKEFi DURXNG THE BIRTH OF CANDY'S 1972 LAMB ...... George M. Constantino ATTENDANCE ROSTER ...... DBC OFFICERS, COMMITTEES AND AWARDS ......

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS REPORT ON THE FIRST NORTH Al'ERICAi'*I WID SHEEP

Warren Kelly Wildlife Biologist U.S. Forest Service

The first North American Wild Sheep Conference was held April 14-15, 1971, at Colorado State University at Fort Collins. I must admit I was pleased when selected to represent the Desert Bighorn Council at this meeting.

A total of 111 people registered for the conference. Thirty-one of those attending the conference were Forest Service representatives. This was not surprising since the Forest Service is the land management agency controlling a considerable amount of Rocky Mountain bighorn habitat. There were fewer representatives from state wildlife agencies than I expected.. Colorado, as could be expected, was well represented with 28 representatives. There was only one from Arizona and New Mexico; two from Wyoming and Canada. Others attending were representatives of National Fark Service, Bureau of Land Management, Universities and those just interested fn bighorn sheep.

Co-Chairman, Gene Decker of Colorado State University and Wayne Sanfort, Colorado Division of Game, Fish and Parks, developed and excellent program. The agenda was divided into four sections; management and current status; physiology and pathology; research techniques; and management problems, procedures and needs.

The first section was status reports from five states; Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. I served as moderator of this panel and had an opportunity to give the objectives and history of the Desert Bighorn Council. The second section; physiology and pathology, presented information on lung worm infections and the pneumonia complex.

The third section; research techniques, dealt with food habits, marking, immobilization of sheep with drugs, and habitat analysis by multispectrol remote sensing.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRAKSACTIONS The last section; management problems, procedures and needs, gave an insight to problems in managing three bighorn sheep herds.

The North American Wild Sheep Conference was an interesting, well executed meeting. I can see this is a meeting that should be continued. I would like to recommend to the Program Chairman of the next North American Wild Sheep Conference that he read the table of Contents of the D.B.C. Transactions. Over 300 papers can cover a great amount of information and there is little need of repeating what has already been published unless new information can be added to the subject.

I want to thank the D.BOC. for sending me to this conference as their representative.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS CE16US OF DESERT BIGtIORi'i SHEEP WITH TIFF-LAPSE PHOTOGWHY

Jack Be Helvie Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Desert National Wildlife Range Las Vegas, Nevada

Abstract: Two time-lapse movie cameras were placed at 13 water-holes on the Desert National Wildlife Range during the summer of 1971. Intervalometers on the cameras were adjusted to expose one frame of film each minute. Depending upon the type of film used, a camera was left at each waterhole for a period of either three or five days. At the end of these pre-determined periods cameras and exposed film were picked up and the film developed. The developed film was then viewed through an edi-viewer and under a low power binocular microscope to facilitate identification and classification of sheep and other forms of wildlife. This technique proved to be quite successful for recording wildlife use at waterholes during daylight hours. A total of 99 sheep, 23 deer, five golden eagles, three coyotes, two red-tailed hawks, and one mountain lion were photographed. Ninety-two (93%) of the sheep photographed were classified.

INTRODUCTION

The initiation of management on any piece of land usually involves four consectltive steps. The first step is census, and is defined as "measuring the stock on hand" (Leopold, 1933). The search for adequate desert bighorn sheep census techniques has been going on for many years. More than 15 different types of wildlife camera-recorders have been devised and used in the field with satisfactory results (Drobnick, 1969). fersonnel at the Desert National Wildlife Range became very interested in wildlife camera- recorders after listening to a paper presented by Rudy Drobnick at the 1969 Desert Bighorn Council meeting. Subsequently we experimented with vibration- sensor photography during the summer of 1970, and then learned of a "home made" time-lapse camera unit that was being used by Erwin L. Boeker in Arizona (Boeker, personal communication)^ After muck investigation into the various aspects of time-lapse photography, we purchased two Minolta* cameras

'kBrand names are for the benefit of the reader and do not imply endorsement.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS with intervalometers and used thex for bighorn census at waterholes with good success during the suxmer of 1971. All personnel at Desert National Wildlife Range worked on this study and contributed to its success.

MATERIALS

The camera used in this study is a Super 8 millimeter movie camera described as the Minolta Autopak-8 D4. The camera is equipped with a Rokkor f 1.8 zoom lens that is continuously variable from 915 mm to 38 mm (4x1. The shutter speed is 1/40 second when taking single frame exposures. Dimensions of the camera are 2 3/4 x 5 x 8 inches, and it weighs 39 ounces. Power source for the camera comes from four AA size 1.5 volt dry batteries. Retail cost of this camera is about $175.

To conduct time-lapse photography it is necessary to use a Minolta Intervalometer-P, which is a repeating timer. This intervalometer enables the camera to do time-lapse filming at rates from 0.5 through 60 seconds between single-frame exposures. The intervalometer is cylindrical, measures 2 x 5 inches, and weighs eight ounces. Retail cost of the intervalometer is approximately $40. It is powered by five AA size 1.5 volt dry batteries. We used Mallory rechargeable alkaline batteries, and they performed very well under extreme heat conditions-

Two types of film were used during the study. These were Kodachrome 11 color film in 50 foot cartridges and Ksdak MFX black and white film in 100 foot cartridges.

A protective box was built for the camera from one-half inch plywood. It measured 12 x 9 x 8 inches and was painted a light tan color to camouflage it from the visiting public. The inside was lined with foam rubber, and a 2 1/2 inch diameter hole was cut in one end to fit around the lens.

An inexpensive editor-viewer and low power binocular microscope were used for classifying the animals that were photographed.

PROCEDURES

Variable conditions such as vegetation type, terrain, and location of the waterhole dictate that a wide range of procedures be used when censusing wildlife with time-lapse photography. However the following procedures will serve as a guideline,

Cameras should be activated only after a period of at least one week of 100" temperatures with no precipitation. Then a camera is placed approximately 50 feet from the waterhole with the zoom lens set at 2 x and pointed in a direction so that the sun will not shine directly into the lens during early morning and late evening hours. The camera should be shaded to keep it as cool as possible, and it should be camouflaged from wildlife and humans. This can be accomplished by strapping the camera box to a tree or by covering it with a canvas cloth.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS A 50-foot roll of Kodachrome 11 film has 3,600 frames, so by setting the intervalometer to take one exposure every minute, the film will last 60 hou hours. This means that if the device is set up at daylight on any given day, the camera will take a picture of the waterhole once every minute for three days and two nights. Observations have shown that very few sheep will approach a waterhole, drink, and leave in less than one minute. A 100-foot roll of MFX black and white film will last through five days and five nights. We found that it was much easier to classify sheep photographed on color film, but we experimented with black and white film because it enabled the camera to monitor activity at the waterhole for a longer period of time.

After the film is developed, it is first viewed through an editor-viewer, and then individual frames are viewed through a low power binocular microscope to identify individual animals. At this time all duplications are sorted out and final tabulations are made. By measuring the number of feet of film between the times when animals appear it is possible to estimate the time of day when any given activity occurred.

RESULTS

During the period of June 24 through August 9, 1971, two cameras monitored wildlife activity at 13 waterholes for a total of 45 camera-days. Ninety- nine desert bighorns, 23 deer, five golden eagles, three coyotes, two red- tailed hawks, and one mountain lion were photographed. Ninety-two (93%) of the sheep photographed were classified. The greatest number of sheep recorded at one waterhole was 25, while no sheep were recorded at six waterholes. Classification data for bighorns gave a ratio of 26 rams: 100 ewes: 16 lambs: 17 yearlings. Deer use was recorded at only four of the waterholes.

DISCUSSION

The time-lapse photography unit described above is reliable, compact, and light weight, making it easy to transport to remote sites. When comparing this census technique with others (such as helicopter counts, manned waterhole counts, and other types of ground counts) it appears that time- lapse photography will provide reliable population information for fewer man-days and dollars expended.

Further refinements that we are working on are:

1, A photo cell is needed to turn the camera off at night and back on . the next morning. This would extend the number of hours of operation. 2. A type of film that would record nighttime activity would be desirable. Night viewing devices are available, but costs are prohibitive. On the Wildlife Range we feel that over 90% of the sheep water during daylight hours. However, it would be

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS desirable to docume.nt this and to also record use by other forms of wildlife at night.

One weakness in the data obtained from this census technique is that the percentage of lambs that actually come to water with the ewes is unknown, and we have not yet come up with a solution to this problem.

LITERATURE CITED

Boeker, Erwin L. 1970. Personal communication.

Drobnick, Rudy 1969. A New Wildlife Recorder, Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 13: 22-26.

Leopold, Aldo 1933. Game Management. Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y. 481 p.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Figure 1. The camera used in this study is compact and light weight. Dial on the intervalometer enables the camera to expose one frame at intervals of 0.5 to 60 seconds.

Figure 2. Camera and protective box.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS. Figure 3. The camera and box can be strapped to a tree . . . .

Figure 4. . . . . or placed under a canvas on a rock.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS 1971 WILD HORSE AND BURRO ACT (PUBLIC LAW 92-195)

Roscoe E. Ferris Bureau of Land Management Washington, D.C.

Abstract: A new Federal law (Public Law 92-195) was passed on December 15, 1971, which provides for protection, management and control of wild free- roaming horses and burros on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Implementation of the act will have an impact upon the desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni). The direction and the extent of this impact will be dependent upon the regulations, policies, and guidelines developed to implement the act and the final interpretation of its provisions through administrative and court decisions.

On December 15, 1971, Bill S. 1116 providing for the protection, management and control of wild free-roaming horses and burros was signed by President Nixon and designated public law 92-195. This law, in its final form, had the overwhelming support of most wild horse and burro protection groups and associations and was passed by Congress without a dissenting vote. Until this act was passed these animals were generally controlled under the various state branding and estray laws or by informal means. The major exception was the special consideration offered wild burros under California statute.

As members of the Desert Bighorn Council, and because of your dedication toward the welfare of the desert bighorn sheep, I know you are concerned regarding the impact Public Law 92-195 may have on the desert bighorn. Due to the present distribution of the desert bighorn you are especially concerned with the impact of wild burros on desert bighorn habitat and populations. I am sure you have many questions regarding the provisions and administration of this legislation. I won't have answers to most of your questions. How- ever, by the conclusion of my discussion I hope you will understand why the answers are not readily available.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Public Law 92-195 is new. This act is short and will require interpretation. The initial interpretation comes in the form of regulations which are further refined by policy and procedure guidelines documented in agency manuals or other instructions. The final interpretation of any given legislation is developed through administrative or court decisions over a period of years. None of these interpretations is available at this time so I can only give you personal opinions as to what the provisions mean after the review of the legislative history and Congressional Committee Reports. Therefore, all of my discussion with you today is subject to future modification by future interpretations.

In general, Public Law 92-195 places wild free-roaming horses and burros on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture. The act also provides for:

Protection and designation of ranges Removal Private maintenance Recovery of privately owned domestic animals An advisory board Cooperative agreements with private, state and local groups Research and studies Penalty for violating the provisions of the act Arrest of violators Relocation of wild horses and burros.

Public Law 92-195 was effective upon signature by the President on December 15, 1971; however, full implementation has not been achieved. Current actions taken or being taken by the department and the bureau are:

1. A public notice has been published in the Federal Register giving notice the act is in effect, the acts prohibited and the penalties for violation. 2. A letter has been sent to the governors of the public land states requesting their cooperation in administration of the act. 3. An advisory board charter has been published in the Federal Register setting forth the composition, selection prscedures, duties, fune- tions and reporting procedures. This notice provides the normal 30-day period for comment. It will also provide for the submission of nominations of candidates to serve on the board. 4. Interim directives have been issued to all Bureau Field Offices pending regulations and manual instructions. 5. A draft of the proposed regulations has been developed and has been circulated for limited review a second draft will be prepared for review by all field personnel and the Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board. The regulations will eventually be published in the Federal Register as proposed rule making allowing general public comment and recommendations. Final regulations will follow. 6. Upon publication of final regulations further guidelines and procedures will be developed through Bureau manuals.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS The wording of many sections of Public Law 92-195 will need immediate interpretation. In fact, I believe that is is inevitable that some of the controversies over specific sections will be adjudicated by the courts in the very near future. I will not attempt to review each section of the act with you in detail but rather spend my time on specific sections which I believe will have the greatest interest to you as members of The Desert Bighorn Council.

Wild free-roaming horses and burros are defined as "All unbranded and unclaimed horses and burros on public land of the United States." The act further provides that a person claiming ownership shall be entitled to recover it only if recovery is permissible under the branding and estray laws of the state in which the animal is found, We anticipate administration of this section will be highly dependent upon the cooperation developed with state and local government entities. Since the major burro populations are not as frequently inter-mingled with year-round domestic livestock operations, this may relieve the ownership problem of burros to some extent. We believe it will be necessary to establish a specific time period during which an individual can assert a claim and remove his animals under state law. Thereafter all unbranded wild free-roaming horses and burros on public lands shall be considered subject to the provisions of the act. If this provision cannot be included in the final regulations, it may be necessary to recognize a claim at any time and process trespass actions. We also believe it will be generally necessary to restrict if not prohibit the use and grazing of domestic horses and burros in areas where wild free-roaming animals are being protected and managed.

Public lands are defined as "Any lands administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management or by the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service." The current interpretation by BLM is that this would include all lands on which BLM has direct or joint administration of the surface (excluding exchange of use). It would include areas such as the Sheldon and Kofa Game Ranges and the Nevada Wild Horse Range under agreement with the Air Force. We do not believe the act applies on lands such as National Parks and Monuments, Game or Wildlife Reservies or lands administered and under the exclusive jurisdiction of other agencies under the Department of the Interior. There are certain areas such as national recreation areas and Bureau of Reclamation withdrawals where the BLM administers the grazing use which are subject to question at this time.

The act specifically provides that wild free-roaming horses and burros are to be considered as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands and that all management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level. The act does, however, provide that the secretary may designate and maintain specific ranges on the public lands as sanctuaries for their protection and preservation.

Only the future can tell what the impact of this act will have on other public land uses including wildlife. I believe we are fortunate that the

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS act does have several specific references to wildlife considerations. Section 3(a) provides that specific wild horse or burro ranges can only be established after consultation with the wildlife agency of the state where- in the range is proposed. It provides that all management activities shall be carried out in consultation with the state wildlife agency. It gives special recognition to protect the natural ecological balance of all wildlife species which inhabit such lands with specific consideration for endangered wildlife species. All forage allocations are to include wildlife considerations. Some members of the advisory board are to have special knowledge of wildlife management.

An initial cursory thought that wild horses and burros are to be protected, managed and controlled on public lands may lead one to believe that many current uses may have to be reduced or eliminated to provide for something new. I do not believe that this is true. One must think of the complete picture before and after. Until passage of Public Law 92-195 these animals were not protected. They were not managed or controlled in a planned or systematic approach either. The Act specifically provides for the reduction of animals in areas found to be overpopulated. They are to be managed and controlled in a manner designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance on the public lands. Wild horses and burros have used the range for many years; however, for all practical purposes they have not been recognized or provided for. The use and competition were not officially recognized or forage reserved. The authority and responsibility are now a matter of law and must be complied with. 1

The control and management of wild horses and burros are new tasks for the Bureau and there are some unknowns which require studies and research. The Act provides that needed studies and research can be conducted; however, we should be very sure the studies are neeeded and can be used by Management. The adjectives wild, unclaimed, free-roaming, etc., before horse or burro does not change the species. There are libraries full of information on horses and burros. We do not need studies on items such as maturity, gestation, lactation, longevity, or water and forage requirements. This information is available. I am not implying that we don't need a great amount of additional information, but I do question the usefulness of such studies as feeding habits and stomach analysis since the data obtained are dependent upon vegetative site, range condition, season, competition and many other factors that are subject to change. For example, I can take you to an area in Western Arizona where burros ate ocotillo (Forequieria splendens) down to stumps three feet high and the size of your wrist. I am sure they didn't prefer this diet but it was eaten under the existing conditions, so we need to be sure the information gained can be used to assist us in the job of animal and resource management. A few items of information needed might fit into the following catagories:

1. Habits of these animals in a free-roaming area 2. Current and potential distribution 3. Optimum population density

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS 4. Procedures to measure competition with other specific domestic and wildlife species 5. Determine management criteria necessary to balance wild horse and burro use in harmony with the total range environment.

The initial efforts of BLM toward the administration of Public Law 92-195 will be directed as follows:

1. Protection 2. Removal of claimed animals 3. Population inventory and distribution 4. Initiate needed studies and research programs 5. Consider wild horses and burros as a part of the environment in the Bureau planning system 6. Development and implementation of management plans.

I have left the important part to the last. A plan of action such as I have just outlined takes manpower and funds. As of this time no funds have been appropriated or manpower designated for administration of the Act. The work that is being accomplished is being taken from other resource management programs that are already stretched to the breaking point. Unless manpower and funds are forthcoming this program cannot be accomplished and all public land resources will suffer.

Full implementation of Public Law 92-195 to fulfill the intent of Congress cannat be achieved without the close coordination and cooperation of other public land users and interests. Special cooperation is needed between The Bureau of Land Management, The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, The State Departments of Agriculture, and The State Wildlife Agencies, and special interest groups such as the Desert Bighorn Council.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS I I'STER-SPEC1 ES ErIBRYO TMJSRR I I4 THE PROPAGATION OF RARE SPECIES OF WIUl SHEEP : FETHODS, APPLI CAT I ON, CJ RRENT LINITAT I ONS PND POSSIBLE RILE Ii;JWILDLIFE PROPAGATION

Thomas D. Bunch Warren C. Foote and J. Juan Spillett Utah State University Logan, Utah

Abstract: The use of inter-species embryo transfer is being investigated at Utah State University as a possible tool in maximizing the breeding potential of the female of rare or endangered species of wildlife. Although this is not a new technique, to date it has not been used for the propagation of wild animals, nor have the possibilities of inter-species transfer between a wild donor and domestic recipient been investigated. Techniques currently are being developed in the domestic sheep, (Ovis aries) with the objective of extending the use of this method to specific types of wild sheep. Animal selection, superovulation, surgery, recovery of embryos, examination and handling of embryos are being investigated and the results, in conjunction with selected literature citations, are presented.

Embryo transfer is not a new technique. As early as 1890, Heape transferred embryos from one rabbit doe to another with subsequent live offspring* By 1934, Nichols successfully obtained offspring from embryo transfer in rats. During this same year, Warwick, Berry and Horlacher (1934) produced living young in farm animals by embryo autotransfer between both sheep and goats. Since the early 1930's a considerable amount of work has been conducted on the transfer of embryos between animals. However, to date this technique has not been used for the propagation of wild animals, nor have the possibilities of inter-species embryo transfer been investigated.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS The greatest impetus in developing embryo transfer as a means to maximize the breeding potential of the female came about as a result of the widespread use of artificial insemination. The inherent capacity of artificial insemination to enhance the reproductive capacity and transmit superior genetic characteristics from the male stimulated interest in developing a comparable system in the female. Superovulation and embryo transfer to suitable recipients has the potential to achieve this accelerated level of reproduction.

The practical application of embryo transfer as a tool in the propagation of wild animals, particularly rare or endangered species, offers a new tool in wildlife management. A more rapid increase in numbers may be obtained by increasing the number of ova produced through superovulation and transfer- ring the fertilized ova to domestic recipients for gestation. Recognizing the potential application of embryo transfer in wildlife management, we have investigated this technique in domestic sheep, with the objective of extending our experience to specific forms of,wild sheep (Ovis canadensis). This paper attempts to outline the progress of embryo transfer methods in sheep, practical applications, current limitations and the possible role of this technique in the preservation of threatened species of wildlife"

Selection of Animals

The proper selection of animals to be used in embryo transfer is important. Both donor and recipient animals should be in good health and of proven reproductive ability. The recipient should be a mature animal, and, ideally, one which has had maternal experience, Compatible reproductive systems between donor and recipient are necessary for normal placentation and gestation. The closer the relationship of these systems, the better the prospects of transferred embryos going full-term,,

Three types of gonadotropins: (1) pituitary extracts, (2) Pregnant Mare Serum Gonadotropin (FMSG) and (3) Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) , commonly have been used for superovulating sheep. Of these, FMSG is generally preferred when only one hormone is used. Animal response to FMSZ is variable and differences have been related to breed, time of year, age, condition, body weight, individual differences within breeds, etco In our work we have used levels of FMSG as high as 1500 to 1800 i.u. to achieve an average of 8 ovulations (range 1 - 16). Some reports have indicated su~erovulatoryresponse to 100 i.u. ?MSG. Treatment with high levels of PMSG may result in excessive follicular development without ovulation and, where ovulation does occur, fertility may be decreased, Moore and Shelton (1962) observed a large decrease in fertility with ovulations in excess of 21.

Frogesterone treatment has been used to maintain donor animals in a similar stage of the estrous cycle. Techniques used in our research were taken from

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS our own experience (Hulet and Foote, 1967) and from research reported in the literature (i.e. Dziuk and Cook, 1966). Synchronization of estrus and superovulation was obtained by administering progesterone in a silicone rubber implant placed subcutaneously in the axillary region of the front leg. The implant was removed after 14 days and PMSG administered (i.mn). The ewes ordinarily show estrus 1-4 days later. There is strong indication that subsequent treatment with PMSG will greatly reduce the variation in time of estrus and ovulation. Marker sterile rams are used to determine time of estrus. During the normal reproductive season the length of the estrous cycle is usually 16-17 days, with a range of 14-19 days.

Surgery

Inhalation, systemic and local anesthetic have been used to anesthetize ewes. Choices of anesthetic have been based on individuals preference, availability of equipment, and type and extent of surgery. Intravenous injections of nembutal, ranging from 15 ml in smaller ewes to 20; ml in larger. ones, have been used in early embryo transfer surgery (Hunter --et al, 1955). Halothane (inhalation anesthetic) also has been used and the effects are much more rapid than nembutal, but halothane requires special equipment. Local anesthetic has greatly facilitated surgical techniques vhen used in conjunc- with proper restraining devices, and has been commonly employed when working on the reproductive tract.

In our work we have used local anesthetic and restrained the animals with a laparotomy cradle (Hulet and Foote, 1968). The use of the laparotomy cradle presents the ventral surface of the ewe for surgery with posterior elevation.

The ewes are fasted 24 to 48 hours prior to surgery. Fasting the animals reduces stress and facilitates greater ease in handling during surgery. When the ewe in the laparotomy cradle is in position, the surgical site is sheared, scrubbed, sterilized and covered with a sterile plastic shroud. Antibiotic is given as a precautionary measure. A 7-8 cm mid-line incision is made approximately 3 cm anterior to the udder. The ovaries, oviduct and uterus are exteriorized for examination and embryo recovery.

Following embryo collection, the peritoneal cavity is closed, using a continous suture with synthetic surgical suture "Vetafil c en gel" (0.40 rnrn). An antibacterial powder (sulfa) is dusted into the incision and the skin closed with skin clips. Post operative recovery occurs without complication and the ewe is ambulatory when removed from the cradle.

Recovery of Embryos

Embryos may be recovered from the oviduct or the uterus. There are specific advantages at each site of recovery. We found the percent of embryo recovery from the oviduct was usually higher than when collected from the uteris. Approximately three days following estrus, the egg passes from the oviduct into the uterus. Rowson and Moor (1966) reported that uterine

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS embryos, specifically at the blastula stage (5-7 days post estrous), had the best probability of implanting and going full-term. The per cent of embryos recovered by flushing the reproductive tract after hysterectomy has been greater than -in- vivo flushes. The latter, however, provides for re-use of the donor.

Modifications of the techniques described by Hunter -et -a1 (1955) were used for --in vivo embryo recovery. In oviduct flushes, a small cannula is placed in the oviduct through an incision in the uterine horn. An 18 gauge blunted hypodermic needle is inserted into the anterior opening (ostium abdominal) of the oviduct. Approximately three ml of warm (38OCO Hanks solution are flushed through the oviduct and recovered in a watch glass via the cannula. For the uterine flush, a sharp hypodermic needle is inserted in the uterus 1--2 inches from the tubo-uterine junction. The posterior end of the uterine horn or body of the uterus is clamped off with a rubber- covered allison forcep. Just slightly anterior to the forcep, a large bore needle (12 gauge), with a short piece of polyethylene tubing attached, is placed partially in the cavity (lumen) of the uterus. Five ml of warm Hanks solution are flushed through the anterior portion of the uterus and out through the large bore needle into a watch glass.

Examination and Handling of Embryos

A dissecting microscope was used to locate and examine collected embryos. Yert il ized embryos were removed from the Hanks solution and placed in Eagle media (10 per cent fetal calf serum - 38OC) in groups, according to degree of development. Although we did not transfer any of the embryos to recipients, viability was determined with cytological techniques. Our objective at that time was to examine chromosome complements from the embryonic cells to determine sex. Chromosomes is a direct indication that the embryos were viable after three hours in cell culture.

Synchronization of Recipient and Transfer of Embryo

The degree of synchronization between the donor and recipient ewe has a large effect on the full-term survivability of transferred embryos. Where large numbers of recipients cannot be maintained, synchronization of the estrous cycle has been achieved with progesterone treatment (Shelton and Moore, 1966). Time of estrus in relationship to optimal survival of embryo transfers has been observed when the recipient was in estrous 12 hours before to 12 hours after the respective donor (Moore and Shelton, 1964). Recipients must ovulate to provide the right type of uterine environment for growth of the transferred embryo.

Laparotomy of the recipient would be performed similarly as described for the donors. A sharp pointed pipet, fastened to a mechanical control (i.e. bulb control, automatic pipet, etc.) has proven efficient for embryo insertion into the oviduct or uterus (Hunter -et -al, 1955). The embryo should be drawn up into the pipet with a minimal amount of media and placed into the lumen

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TWSACTIONS of the oviduct or uterus via a small incision made with a scalpel. One embryo is usually placed in the lumen of each uterine horn or oviduct. The number of embryos transferred will depend upon the genetic capacity of the recipient (Moore and Shelton, 1962)"

Application of Embryo Transfer

Embryo transfer has both scientific and practical application. It provides a critical approach to biochemistry of reproduction, genetics, cytogenetics, nutrition, immunology, etc. A practical application is in the ability to rapidly propagate breeding stock from a reduced number of females. This has been demonstrated in the work of Rowson and Adams (1957). A single ewe was treated with PMSG. At surgery, 13 embryos were recovered and transferred to six recipients. Nine of the 13 developed normally. The donor ewe was allowed to rebreed and gave birth to a single lamb. As a result, 10 lambs were born during one breeding season. In the propagation of a rare or endangered speci?s, only a few animals usually can be obtained. Here lies the potential significance of embryo transfer in the propagation of specific forms of wildlife -- only a small number of donor animals are necessary, 9nce the transfer has been made to a domestic recipient, the wild donor animal could be returned to its native habitat. Using the domestic recipient for embryo transzers from rare or endangered species of wildlife provides at least three advantages: (1) domestic recipients are usually inexpensive and readily obtained; (2) they are easy to handle and easily maintained; and (3) they provide a biological system to critically approach factors related to pre- and postnatal mortality (i.e. nutrition, disease, immunological ability and response, etc.)

Another im?ortant practical application of embryo transfer is the ability to rapidly develop a breeding stock of genetically superior animals, For example: Those animals that have the genetic capacity to withstand specific types of diseases could be rapidly propagated. In many wild sheep populations, disease takes a heavy toll. Embryo transfer provides a means of propagating those animals that seem to have a stronger defense system to disease.

Limitations

Just as embryo transfer has many attractive advantages, it also has limitations. These limitations have, for the most part, restricted its use in commercial enterpriese. The number of embryos produced per female at any one time is limited to a fairly small number. This varies from animal to animal e:2d s7ecies to species. Usually the number of ovulations from success ve superovulation treatments in the same animal decreases (Hulet and Foote, 1969)" There also is a wide range in individual animal variation in ovzlatory response to gonadotropins. Probably the greatest single disadvantage is the lack of a practical, non-surgical method to collect and transfer ,enbryos. Adhesions tend to occur, especially where recurrent collectioc is attempted. This can seriously limit recovery of embryos.

DESERT SIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Future Development and Application

The future of embryo transfer lies in the perfection and improvement of ?resent techniques. The possibility of recovering oocytes from the ovaries? maturing them --in vitro (tissue culture), fertilizing --in vitro, and then growing the embryo in vitro to a stage of development for optimal transfer- ring would greatly enhance the breeding potential of the female. Fertiliza- tion could also be accomplished in the oviduct of the recipient animal. Several aspects of developing this system in an almost artificial environment currently are being investigated. Once this system is perfected, it would have great value in the propagation of wildlife species. The wild donor animal could be immobflized in the fieLd, surgery performed, an ovary removed, and then by in vitro techniques several hundred oocytes matured, fertilized by semen which previously had been collected from a male of the same species and stored in liquid nitrogen. Then the embryos could be cultured to the stage of development for optimal transfer, and transferred to a suitable domestic recipient.

Conclusion

Until we are able to bring many wild animals, such as our own native wild sheep, Lnto captivity for prolonged periods of time, we will probably never be able to fully evaluate many of the decimating factors that take a heavy toll on animal populations. Embryo transfer offers the opportunity to rapidly increase numbers of endangered wild animals, and also provides a system whereby careful selection may produce superior animals to insure continued survival 02 the species.

DESERT BIGHORN CO'LTNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS LITERATURE CITED

Dzuik, P.K. and B. Cook. 1966. Passage of steroids through silicone rubber. Endocrinology 78~208-211.

Heape, W. 1890. Preliminary note on the transplantation and growth of mammalian ova within a uterine foster-mother. Royal Society Proc. 48~457.

Hulet, C.V. and W.C. Foote. 1967. Introduction of fertile estrus in lactating and dry anestrous ewes using oral progestogens in repeating PMS treatment, Jour. Animal Science 26:545.

1968. A rapid technique for observing the reproductive tract of living ewes. Jour, Animal Science 263142-145.

1969. Ovulatory response in the ewe to repeated injections of PMS. Jour. Animal Science 29:457-463.

Hunter, G.L., C.E. Adams and L.E. Rowson. 1955. Inter-breed ovum transfer in sheep, Jour. Agric. Science 46~143-149.

Moore, N.Wil, and J.N. Shelton. 1962. The application of the technique of egg transfer to sheep breeding. Australian Jour. Agricu. Research 13:718-724.

1964. Egg transfer in sheep: Effect of degree of synchronization between donor and recipient, age of egg, and site of transfer on the survival of transferred eggs. Jour. Reproductive Fertility 7~145-152.

- Nicholas, J.S. 1934. The induction of artificial pregnancy in virgin rats. Anatomical Record 58:31.

Rowson, L.E.A. and C.E. Adams. 1957. An egg transfer experiment on sheep. Veterinary Record 69:849.

, and R.M. Moor. 1966. Embryo transfer in the sheep: the significance of synchronizing oestrus in the donor and recipient animal. Jour. Reproductive Fertility 11:207-212.

Shelton, J.N. and N.W. Moore. 1966. Survival of fertilized eggs transferred to ewes after progesterone treatment. Jour. Reproductive Fertility 11 :149-151.

Warwick, B.L., R.O. Berry and W.R. Horlacher. 1934. Results of mating rams to angora female goats. Ameri. Soc, Animal Production Pro. p. 225.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS WI;STEK FOOD iHiQITS OF UVIFOR4IA ilIGH9R4 SHEEP IN THE SI ERN EVADA

David J. Dunaway, Wildlife Biologist U. S. D. A. Forest Service Bishop, California

Abstract: Observations on winter food habits of California bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis californiana) were made on the Sawmill Canyon - Black Canyon winter range in the Sierra Nevada. Shrubs are the major food plant selected by the sheep during the winter season. Desert bitterbrush, green ephedra, and California buckwheat received the heaviest use. Desert needlegrass was the main perennial bunchgrass used by the sheep during the winter months.

One of the links in the intricate chain that binds the bighorn sheep to its habitat is that of forage preference. The maintenance and productivity of any bighorn population is dependent upon the availability of suitable food plants on the various units that make up their home range. Knowledge of the basic relationships between the animal and its food supply is necessary if the resource manager is to make correct decisions in wildlife habitat management programs.

Food habits studies have been conducted on most of the major bighorn sheep ranges in the United States and Canada (Browning. 1972). These studies have shown that the normal diet of bighorn sheep consists of a wide variety of plants. The bighorns choice of food item will vary with availability, palatability, and succulence of the plants which in turn varies with elevation, precipitation, soil conditions, and season of the year.

Information regarding forage preferences of California bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada is quite limited. While working on summer ranges, Jones (1950) concluded that grasses, sedges, and forbes comprised that major portion of the sheep's summer diet. Riegelhuth (1965) recorded bighorn sheep use on several shrub species while conducting range reconnaissance surveys on Sierra Nevada bighorn ranges. McCullough and Schneegas (1966)

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS reported that one bunch grass, desert needlegrass (Stipa speciosa), and three shrubs, desert bitterbrush (Purshia glandulosa), green ephedra (Ephedra-- viridis), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) were the main food plants for bighorn on the east side Sierra Nevada winter ranges.

-Study- Area

In order to expand the current level of knowledge on food habits of California bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada, the author conducted field studies on the Inyo National Forest during the winter period from 1969 through 1972. The Sawmill Canyon - Black Canyon winter range unit for the Mt. Baxter herd was selected for study as it supports the largest herd of bighorns remaining in the Sierra and is readily accessible during the winter months

Field Survey Methods

Several methods were used to gather field data on bighorn food plant selection, these were: (1) direct observation of feeding sheep. A 15-60 power spotting scope was used to aid in making plant identification when direct feeding observations were recorded: (2) band trailing in fresh snow and observing what plants had been used by the sheep: (3) observation of the feeding site after the animals had left the area. This was most useful in recording use on bunch grasses. Each plant that was used by the sheep was recorded as a single observation of use for that particular plant species. All field data was gathered during the winter season (December to early March).

The advantages in using the above methods was ease of application and rapidity in gathering the field data. The most obvious disadvantage is tha lack of any data on plant volume consumed by the sheep for each species used as a food item.

Results

Forage plant selections made by California bighorn sheep on the Sawmill Canyon - Black Canyon winter range are summarized in Table 1. It is obvious that shrubs are the staple food plants used by bighorns on this particular vinter range, The average use by plant type for the three winter periods is 82 per cent shrubs, 15 per cent grass, and 3 per cent forbes. The most important shrubs are desert bitterbrush, green ephedra, and California buckwheat. Desert needlegrass was the most important bunch grass used on the winter range. These findings substantiate those reported by McCullough and Schneegas (1966).

The above normal use on shrubs recorded for the months of February and March, 1970, reflects the severe winter conditions that prevailed in the Sierra Nevada at that time. Snow depths were extreme on the bighorn winter ranges which confined the sheep to small portions of their range for almost

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS six weeks. The only available food source was the shrubs that were above the snow surface. Use on shrubs not normally browsed by the sheep, such as Ceanothus greggii, Dalea polyandra, and Prunus Andersonii was recorded during this time period. This particular winter magnified the importance the shrubs as forage plants for the bighorns during severe winter conditions in the Sierra.

Discussion

Food habits studies conducted on other major bighorn sheep ranges have shown that grass is favored over browse plants during a11 seasons of the year. Information taken from reports from fifteen food habits studeis have been summarized in Table 2. Winter season food habits of bighorn sheep was averaged from ten of these areas. Grass was accountable for 65 per cent of the winter diet while forbes made up 10 per cent and shrubs the remaining 25 per cent. Several of the individual studies indicate there are notable variations in bighorn food habits on different ranges. Sugden (1961) found that California bighorn sheep on the Churn Creek range in British Columbia favored pasture sage (Artimisia frigida) over native bunchgrass during the winter season. As bunchgrass and pasture sage were equally available, he concluded that use of the pasture sage by the sheep reflected a preference for this plant. Shrubs accounted for a major portion of the winter diet for bighorn sheep herds in the Sun River Canyon area of Montana (Shallenberger, 1965) and for the Ashnola River herd in British Columbia (Blood, 1961). On the other hand, grass made up 81 per cent of the winter diet for desert bighorn on the Desert Game Range in Nevada (Barrett, 1964) and 97 per cent of the diet for bighorns on Wildhorse island in Montana (Ogren, 1954). These findings substantiate the viewpoint that bighorns exhibit a wide range in food plant selection, however, the 82 per cent use on shrubs by California bighorn in the Sierra is one of the extremes when compared to other ranges occupied by bighorn sheep.

Table 2 shows that grasses make up about 15 per cent of the winter diet for sheep on the Sawmill Canyon - Black Canyon winter range. The main species eaten is desert needlegrass. This is the most common perennial buch grass found on the Sierra Nevada winter ranges occupied by bighorns. Sheep will sat the desert needlegrass as soon as new green growth appears on the grass crowns. The period of use normally depends on the weather conditions. When storms drop moisture on the ranges in November and December followed by a warming trend, the grasses will green up in late December. This is the case for December of 1971 as use by sheep was fairly high during the last ~ceekin December and increased rapidly in January. The low use on grass in February and March of 1970 reflects the deep snow conditions which covered the bunch grasses normally available to the sheep.

Utilization of the bunch grasses by the sheep indicate they select the younger vigorous plants over the older plants that have much dead material in the crown. Many of the older desert needlegrass plants have large

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS crowns with hollow centers. Growth on these "wolf plants" is generally rank and not eaten by the bighorns.

It is interesting to speculate about the opportunity to upgrade the overall quality of the Sierra Nevada bighorn winter ranges by establishing young thrifty stands of perennial bunch grasses among the shrub stands on the range. It is very likely that the sheep would use the young grasses during the winter and spring seasons.

Conclusions

The following conclusions regarding winter food habits of California bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada are advanced as a result of the study:

1. Shru3s are key food sources for sheep that winter on the lower slopes of the Sierra Nevada. (Fig. 1) 2. Maintenance of the shrub components in a healthy and productive condition is paramount for the continued survival of the bighorns. 3. The importance of the scattered perennial bunch grasses to the winter dietary needs of the sheep must not be discounted. 4. The quality and nutritional plane of the winter ranges may be improved by establishment of seeded perennial grasses on suitable sites on the winter ranges.

LITERATURE CITED

Barrett, Reginald H., 1964. Seasonal food habits of the bighorn at the Desert Game Range, Nevada. Transactions Desert Bighorn Council, 1964, pp 83-93-

Blood, Donald A., 1961. An ecological study of California bighorn sheep ic southern British Columbia. M. Sc. Thesis, Univ. of British Columbia, 127 ppo

, 1967. Food habits of the Ashnola bighorn sheep herd. Canadian Field Naturalist, Vol. 81, No. 1, pp 23-29.

Browning, 5. M. 1972. The desert bighorn, its life history, ecology and management. Chapter 4 Food. Desert Bighorn Council, preprint, 98 PP.

Capp, John C., 1968. Bighorn sheep, elk, mule deer range relationships, a review of literature. Rocky Mountain Nature Assoc., Estes Park, Colo., and Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 74 pp.

Demarchi, R. A., 1965. An ecological study of the Ashnola Bighorn winter ranges. 5. S. A. thesis, Univ. of British Columbia.

Jones, Fred L., 1950.. A survey of the Sierra Nevada bighorn. Sierra Club Bull., June, 1950.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS McCullough, Dale R. and E. R. Schneegas, 1966. Winter observations on the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Calif., Fish and Famg, 52 (2), pp 68-84.

Morgan, James K., 1970. Ecology of the Morgan Creek and East Fork of the Salmon River bighorn sheep herds and management of bighorn sheep in Idaho. M. S. Thesis, Montana State University, 77 pp.

Riegelhuth, Richard., 1965. Reconnaissance of Sierra bighorn and bighorn ranges in the Sierra Nevada. Transactions Desert Bighorn Council, 1965.

Sugden, Lawson F., 1961. The California bighorn in British Columbia with particular reference to the Churn Creek herd. British Columbia Dept. Recreation and Conservation, 58 pp.

Woolf, Alan, 1968. Summer ecology of bighorn sheep in Yellowstone National Park. M. S. Thesis, Colorado State University, 111 pp.

Yoakum, James D., 1964. Bighorn food habit-range relationships in the Silver Peak range, Nevada. Transactions Desert Bighorn Council, 1964, pp 95-102.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Figure 1

FOOD HABITS OF NORTH ANiERICAN BIGHORN SHEEP

AVERAGE FROM 15 BIGHORN RANGES SIERRA NEVADA

FALL W l NTER SPRING SUIAMER WINTER

BROWSE FORBES GRASS

DESERT EEGIiOEW COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS TABLE 1. F03D HABITS OF CALIFORYIA BIGHQNJ SHEEP - --- -ON THE SA'C.2,IILL CXXk'OlJ - BLACK CANYON WINTER RAMGE

Plant Species Number of Feeding- Observations-- eaten by sheep Jan. Feb. Jan. Feb. March Bec. Jan., Totab 1969 1969 1970 1970 1970 1971 1972 No. Percent

Stipa spec: 1 osa Sitanion hystrix Bromus rubens Bromus tectorum Lupinus excubitus Unknown f orbs Penstemon papillatus Purshia glandulcsa Ephedra viridis Eriogonurri

TOTALS 159 171 97 202 287 126 183 1

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS TABLE 2. FOOD HABITS OF NORTH PLXEKICSN BIGHORN SFXE? POPULiiTIONS _I/

u -- FOOD M STUDY FOOD~HABITS .---- BY SZASON - HABITS v3 ig AUTHOR LOCATION FALL WZL;TER SPF.ING SUMMER DETER9INATION TECHNIGUE T: Desert Game G-48% G-81% G-67% (3-9493 46 stomach sancles collected w H Barrett 2/ Range, Nevada , B-44% S-17% F-25% F-3% during 1957-1961. 3 1964 F-2% B-8% B-3% % by vollme. 5 IF-*% !z , Ashnola River /G-64% B-494 G-94% I Grazed stem counts-trailing Blood, 2/ British Columbia I 13-32% 1 G-44% B-3% 9 1961, 1967 F-4% F-7% F-3% 0 14 Jasper National G-83% Direct observation r' * 2J Park, Canada F-10% % feeding time of band. I-' Cowan, 1947 B-7% 4 ro -- Ashnola River G-88% nemarchi British Columbia F-6% Grazed stem ccunt. cn . 1962 B-6% C3* Morgan Creek G-61% G-64% G-75% Direct observaticn of i-J I4 Morgan Salnon River B-31% B-30% B-23% feeding sheew 1970 Idaho F-8% F-6% F-2% I I Moser, 1962 14 ighcrn t 81 stomach samples Tileston -t2/ in Colorado E-19% I % by volume 1362 F-6% - Wildhorse Island G-93% I G-97% G-54% G-84% Direct observation of B-2% B-34% B-12% feeding site F-12% F-a% Yellowstone Direct observation and band Oldmeyer trailing in snow 1966 Wyoming Fall--15 stomach sam~les % by volurne Winter feeding-site exanination 1 - f Salmon River G G G Cirect observation -% feeding F) 56% 1 F) '77% 1 ,) 86% time of group. Smith 2J I Idaho B-39% 1 9-22% 1 B-14% ( G & F lumped together

THE STATLIS OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP ON ME PAPAGO I lD I N4 RESERVATI @4

David E. Brown Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona

Abstract: The Papago Indian Reservation in south central Arizona has over 2,000,000 acres and includes all or parts of 35 named mountains or hills. Elevation ranges from less than 1,500 feet to 7,770 feet on Baboquivari Peak. There are 5,000 to 8,000 resident Indians on the reservation. They are concentrated in major villages and the town of Sells, Arizona. Livestock grazing is an important way of life and overgrazing has become increasingly common. It is assumed that bighorn (Ovis canadenis) inhabit most, if not all, of the mountain ranges on the Reservation. The Indians were cognizant of the various game species on the whole area. In spite of available habitat, bighorn numbers are very low and in danger of extermination. The estimated population is not more than 50 animals on the Reservation. The lack of water, depleted by man has unquestionably led to the concentration and reduction of bighorn.

The main body of the Papago Indian Reservation lies southwest of Tucson in extreme south central Arizona and covers 2,774,381 acres. This is over 4,335 sections and an area larger than all the federal game ranges and wildlife refuges in Arizona combined. The entire Reservation has a basin and range physiography made up of all or portions of over 35 identified mountain ranges, mountains and groups of hills situated in five major valley basins and numerous intermountain floors. Ninety percent of the vegetative communities on the Reservation are those termed Sonoran Desert scrub, with most of the remainder being desert grassland associations. Woodlands of an encinal type occur only in the Baboquivari and Qunilin Mountains at the extreme eastern edge of the Reservation. Elevations range from less than 1,500 feet on Santa Rosa Wash, south of Casa Grande, to 7,770 feet on Baboquivari Peak.

Bureau of Indian Affairs and other sources place resident Indian population estimates at between 5,000 and 8,000 individuals. This resident population

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS fluctuates depending on various seasons of the year and off Reservation farm employment opportunities. This human population density of less than two persons per square mile is not randomly distributed but is concentrated in the major villages and at the principal town of Sells, where the administrative offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs are located. Evidence of a recent trend towards urbanization is the number of abandoned houses and even villages in the more remote areas. Up until World War 11, flash-flood farming, wood cutting, livestock grazing, hunting and food gathering activities were important endeavors of the resident Papagos. Flash-flood farming has all but disappeared, and hunting and food gathering are restricted to an ever smaller but still important (from a sheep management standpoint) segment of the population. Many Indians are still employed in or near rural communities off the Reservation or at government facilities on the Reservation. Live- stock grazing is still an important way of life although the area does not lend itself to this economy and evidence of its unsuitability and mismanage- ment are readily apparent. Annual "droughts" and resulting livestock crises due to overgrazing of the desert scrub and limited grasslands have become increasingly common. Since the abandonment of a farming venture in Tecolote Valley, agriculture is limited to minuscle acreages near villages. Mining activity, once quite extensive on the Reservation, is now on the upsurge again after a period of decline but is still limited to a few locations.

Bighorn sheep are found on all the mountain ranges adjacent to the Reservation on the west and northwest, as well as the Sawtooth, West Silverbell, Silverbell and Coyote Mountains to the north and east. In addition, sheep were known to occupy the only other mountain ranges along the Reservation boundary. The Waterman and Roskruge Mountains, in comparatively recent times. Little or nothing is known of the present status of the bighorn sheep in the mountain ranges immediately south of the Reservation-in Sonora. For these reasons it has been assumed that bighorn sheep inhabit most, if not all, of the mountain ranges on the Reservation (Levy, 1963). Of the 35 or so mountain ranges on the Reservation, ten have peaks over 4,000 feet in elevation, and another 11 or so contain enough mountain mass to be considered potential sheep habitat. This does not take into account smaller ranges and hills which could periodi- cally harbor small bands of sheep or transitory individuals.

I have had the occasion to visit most of these mountains over the last ten years, usually accompanied by Ron Anderson or other personnel of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Since the wildlife and other resource management responsibilities for the Papago Indian Reservation are the jurisdiction of the Papago tribe and the Federal Government, our visits were of an investiga- tive only. Game management programs and regulations, or rather the absence of them, were discussed at the 1963 Bighorn Council Meeting by Seymour Levy. Investigation often began with reports (both published and unpublished) of sheep, and by visiting small villages in an area and interviewing local residents regarding which game species were present in a given locale. Usually each of these villages has one or two individuals who are identified as "hunters". They hunt big gzme as an avocation, if not a vocation, and their dwellings are identifiable by the presence of deer antlers and sheep

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS heads. The latter items have become increasingly rare as their monetary value as curios becomes known. Of particular interest is the custom of hanging hocks of all big game species taken (sometimes bundled by baling wire) under a ramada or large mesquite. Most of the individuals contacted were initially suspicious or reluctant to discuss their hunting locales until convinced that we were not attempting to restrict or compete with them. Field investigations proved that these people were well cognizant of the various game species in the mountain ranges of not only their immediate vicinity but usually of large extents of the Reservation. The only discrepancy was in estimated numbers; their estimates of high density were quite low populations by our standards.

Portions of the mountain ranges showing promise of being inhabited by sheep or of other particular interests were surveyed on foot. Each mountain range was evaluated as sheep habitat on the basis of hunter reports, ruggedness of terrain, vegetative cover, geomass and historic records. The objective was not to determine sheep numbers as such but to determine distributional data of the various species of wildlife present and their relative density. Botanical species were also noted. The presence of sheep was usually determined by climbing to a summit and looking for sheep, sheep beds, droppings and saguaro damage. Caves and known watering areas were investigated for sign and carcass remains. One generalization regarding all the desert mountain ranges is that natural waters are very rare, undependable or absent. This has resulted in most of the mountains possessing excellent range conditions in contrast to areas on the valley floors in the vicinity of developed waters. Overgrazing by cattle in these areas has resulted in irreparable damage to the range resource.

The following are the observations and impressions concerning bighorn sheep in the major mountain ranges:

Baboquivari Mountains - This mountain range and its subdivisions, the Pozo Verdes and Saucitos, form the southeastern boundary. Only the western side of the Baboquivaris and Pozo Verdes are in the Reservation. Both sides of these mountains are frequented by whitetail deer hunters, botanists and mountain climbers so that they are comparatively well known. I am aware of only two reports of sheep during the last ten years. One was reported above Baboquivari Canyon, and the other was a ram allegedly shot from the Pozo Verdes. These were most certainly transients, possibly from the adjacent Coyote Mountains which are mostly off the Reservation. Consequently, it is extremely doubtful if these mountains have contained a breeding, resident sheep population for a good many years.

Quinlan Mountains - Whatever sheep habitat existed here in the past is now occupied by Kitt Peak Observatory. Occasionally- sheep are still sighted on the slopes for short durations when they cross over from the Coyote Mountains.

Alvarez Mountains and Las Animas Mountain - Sheep are not known to occur in these mountains. They are not particularly good sheep habitat in that the precipitous bluffs, prominent ridges and spires which providing lambing and escape areas are lacking. The highest elevation is 3,405 feet, and the

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS TABLE 1. F03D HABITS OF CALIFORYIA BIGHQNJ SHEEP - --- -ON THE SA'C.2,IILL CXXk'OlJ - BLACK CANYON WINTER RAMGE

Plant Species Number of Feeding- Observations-- eaten by sheep Jan. Feb. Jan. Feb. March Bec. Jan., Totab 1969 1969 1970 1970 1970 1971 1972 No. Percent

Stipa spec: 1 osa Sitanion hystrix Bromus rubens Bromus tectorum Lupinus excubitus Unknown f orbs Penstemon papillatus Purshia glandulcsa Ephedra viridis Eriogonurri

TOTALS 159 171 97 202 287 126 183 1

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS TABLE 2. FOOD HABITS OF NORTH PLXEKICSN BIGHORN SFXE? POPULiiTIONS _I/

THE STATLIS OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP ON ME PAPAGO I lD I N4 RESERVATI @4

David E. Brown Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona

Bureau of Indian Affairs and other sources place resident Indian population estimates at between 5,000 and 8,000 individuals. This resident population

The following are the observations and impressions concerning bighorn sheep in the major mountain ranges:

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Major forbs and grasses include globemallow (Sphaeralcea =.)mustards (Brassica 2.) , buckwheat (Eriogonum sp. ) , fleabane (Erigeron sp. ) , flax (Linum sp. ) , onion (Allium -- 2.) , needlegrass (Stipa 9.) , exa as ti moth^ (=usphleoides) and grama grasses (Bouteloua -sp. ) .

Since 1952, the area has been subject to extreme droughts, one in 1952 through 1954, one in 1956 which reportedly was the worst in recorded history, and again in 1971. The droughts of the '50's resulted in catastrophic die- offs of 50 per cent to 90 per cent of browse plants over large areas of the Hatchets. Other plant species also deteriorated. Effects of droughts are still visible, however, range conditions are improving. Vegetative condition is considered satisfactory as composition, density and vigor have returned to near former conditions.

Two range exclosures were constructed by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, (NMDG & F), in 1955, No significant changes in plant species composition, density or vigor inside or outside the exclosures can be found. A large 40 acre exclosure constructed by the BLM in 1965 also indicates no significant changes.

Water

Ten permanent water sources are present in the area. Seven of these are rain catchment water units placed by the NMDG & F and the BLM (Fig. 3). The remainder are livestock waters (wells and pipelines). These water units were checked in March, 1972, and found to be functioning. Those units placed on the southern end of the Big Hatchets receive constant use by bighorns. The most southern unit visited in 1972 was dry apparently due to use. Water units from the middle to the northern portion of the mountains received only sporadic use by bighorn.

Water availability is considered adequate since waters are placed approximately two miles apart. However, a problem exists because they do not have adequate storage to last through drought years. Additional water units must be placed to overcome this problem. Water pumped from existing wells to storage tanks and then to troughs would result in permanent sources during severe droughts.

Cover

Steep, rocky slopes with numerous, small cliffs of limestone out-crops provide adequate bedding grounds and loafing areas. These areas are also in close proximity to feeding grounds. The south exposure of New Wells Canyon exemplifies this condition where 27 beds were observed from one vantage point. Ground cover is adequate in lambing areas. Pinion-juniper stands contribute little to cover as little or no bighorn use is found.

Shade is adequate on the steep rock slopes or in shallow caves. Cover is considered satisfactory.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS 'Living Space

Approximately 55 square miles of suitable bighorn habitat is available in the Big Hatchets. Of this, 34 square miles or essentially the southern one-half is considered the key use area by the bighorns (Fig. 3). The remaining 21 square miles are used sporadically by mature rams.

Historically, bighorns migrated between the Big Hatchet Mountains and the Boca Grande Mountains of Mexico. In 1948, the international boundary was fenced, curtailing the migration. The fence is a seven-strand barbed wire with an overall height of 56 inches.

Wildlife Use

Bighorn sheep populations were drastically reduced by the droughts of 1950's. The populati~nprior to the droughts was estimated at 177. Counts conducted during 1959 and 1960 indicated a population of eight.

Another census in 1961 resulted in a count of 18 with an estimated population of 25. A later count in 1969 indicated a population of 25. The majority of these observations have been made in the area designated on Fig. 3 the key area.

Observations from ranchers and persons visiting the Big Hatchets since 1969 are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 - Bighorn Sightings in the Big Hatchets since 1969

Year of Sighting Location Number

Sheep Trap Canyon 4 ewes 2 lambs Between Big Hatchets and Little Hatchets 1 ram Mine Canyon 2 rams Near Mangus Tank 2 rams 2 ewes Near New Well Canyon 9 rams Road in Mine Canyon Tracks of 1 ewe and 1 lamb

The current population is estimated at 25. Apparently the population is at a static level of 25 although it is recommended that a census be undertaken by helicopter during the 1972-1973 winter.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Ewe-ram ratios in the 1950's indicated a balanced sex ratio. Yearling-lamb ratios indicated a low lamb survival for the same period of time (Gordon, 1956).

Little data has been gathered on the food preferences of the bighorn in the Hatchets. Stomach contents of two bighorn collected in the summer had 82 per cent grass (Gordon, 1956). This is what one would expect as July and August is the peak period for precipitation. During this period grass species are green and succulent.

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish collected the major plant species and had the plants analyzed for calcium, manganese, phosphorus, cobalt, and copper. Results from the collection indicate a shortage of elements may be limiting the bighorn population. (Gordon, 1956).

Mule deer, (Odocoileus hemionus), populations were reduced by the droughts as were the bighorn populations. However, they are still thought to out number the bighorn over five to one.

Table 5 presents deer stomach content data collected from the Big Hatchet Mountains. These data indicate that competition for forage does occur. The exact competition is not known presently but is probably not a problem, as the populations are low. However, should the bighorn sheep and mule deer populations increase to pre-1950 populations, competition for forage, particularly browse, could become critical.

Table 5 - Summary of analysis of desert mule deer stomachs from animals killed in Big Hatchet Mountains, Hidalgo County, New Mexico, March, 1954 (New Mexico 1960b)

Plant S~ecies

Opuntia engelmannii Rhus trilobata Juniperus monosperma Grass (all species) Cercocarpus spp. Garrya wrightii Fern Phoradendron 2.

a - These are estimated percentages of an identifiable portion of the samples

b - t = value of less than 1.0 per cent

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Other wildlife species in the Big Hatchets include: javelina, (Pecari angulatus), bobcats, (ar'x-- rufus), coyotes, (Canis latrans), mountain lions, (Felis concolor) and golden eagle, (Aquila chrysaetos) . Javelina are hunted in the area when populations permit.

Bobcats, coyotes, mountain lions and golden eagles are potential predators to the bighorn population. Mountain lions are believed to pose the greatest threat to bighorn. During a 1972 survey, cougar tracks and/or droppings were found in every drainage visited. Currently, rodent, rabbit, and deer numbers are low resulting from past droughts. Such conditions increase the possibilities of keeping bighorn numbers depressed by predation.

Livestock Grazing

Cattle and horses are grazed in the Big Hatchets. The rough terrain of the mountains precludes grazing in some portions (Fig. 3). Normally, grazing is restricted to the lower slopes of the mountains and is thought not to be a major competition factor. However, during periods of severe drought when forage is scarce, competition between livestock and bighorn is serious.

Livestock grazing in the past has been for the period of November to May. A livestock grazing plan has been completed.

Discussion

The following habitat factors that could limit the desert bighorn sheep population have been identified:

Competition for forage by livestock and deer is a problem during periodic droughts. This problem can be reduced by manipulation of livestock grazing and by manipulation of deer hunting seasons.

Water is extremely limited during drought periods. This problem has been partially offset by placement of water units by the Bureau of Land Management and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Additional water unit locations should be installed from existing wells with 10,000 gallon storage tanks to insure permanent water in at least three locations.

Cover is satisfactory except for dense pinion-juniper stands which apparently are little used by bighorn sheep. These stands could be removed through burning, either controlled or by allowing natural fires to burn uncontrolled in these areas.

Those factors independent of habitat factors listed above, that could be limiting the bighorn population are:

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS 1. Disease and parasites are known to be present. Probably the most harmful parasite is the large stomach worm (Haemonchus placei). This parasite could possibly be treated by using omnizole in salt blocks.

2. Insects, including gnats harrass the bighorns and could influence distribution. It is doubtful that anything can be done to reduce this problem, however, it should be studied.

3. Predation may be serious. This has not been established, however mountain lions may be a problem when deer, rabbit, rodent and bighorn populations are low. Predation could be reduced by control using trapping and hunting.

4. The bighorn population has reached a level where limiting factors appear to preclude further population increases. This problem could be reduced by transplanting additional Mexican desert bighorn sheep into the area. It is recommended the initial plant be made on the northern portion of the Big Hatchets and that a temporary fence be constructed to contain the animals while they become established on the northern portion.

Other limiting factors may be present and not apparent at this time. Addi- tional inventory work is being continued with particular emphasis on forb and grass densities. Also helicopter surveys to inventory the number of bighorn present should be conducted.

Food, cover and water in the Big Hatchet Mountains is considered satisfactory except during periods of extreme drought. Currently, predation, desease, and parasites are probably the greatest limiting factors to the population.

LITERATURE CITED

Gordon, S.P. 1956. Mexican border big game management survey. Job Completion report W-68-R-3. New Mexico Depart. Game and Fish. Santa Fe.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1960a. Mexican bighorn sheep history and management investigations, May 1, 1959-April 30, 1960. Job Completion report W-100-R-1. New Mexico Depart. Game and Fish. Santa Fe.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1960b. Mexican bighorn sheep history and management investigations, May 1, 1959-May 15, 1960. Job Coapletion report W-100-T-1. New Mexico Depart. Game and Fish. Santa Fe.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS ,Santa Fe

Albuquerque

- Big Hafchef Mounfains Yhldlife Habifaf Area

Figure I

:' -7 "-- DE 2 ERT ~tic~iii>Ei'COUNCIL 1972 TKELNSACTZONS

THE ARIZOI4A DESERT B IGHORIN SHEEP SOC I ElY,

Robert D. Carson P.O. Box 5241 Phoenix, AZ 85010

The ADBSS is a society dedicated to the advancement and recognition of the desert bighorn sheep, (Ovis canadensis), to support the management, conservation, restoration, and utilization of the desert bighorn and to oppose any action or legislation that would adversely affect the desert bighorn or its habitat. The society has grown to approximately 300 members; sportsmen, conservationists, professional wildlife managers, educators, biologists, photographers and others interested in the bighorn.

The Society conducts an annual program (usually five) of major habitat im improvement projects working as volunteer labor under the planning, guidance and direction of wildlife management personnel from Sate and Federal agencies responsible for bighorn management. The Society participates in sheep counts and habitat surveys. A "Sheep clinic" hunter training program is conducted by the Society with excellent cooperation by State and Federal agencies. We are looking for ways to develop contacts with graduate students and universities working in wildlife management so that we could offer some small financial support to worthy graduate students who wish to do thesis research related to desert bighorn.

A Zoo project is currently under way destined to yield a realistic habitat display at the Phoenix Zoo to exhibit a band of desert bighorn. The sheep will be placed in the Phoenix Zoo by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The enclosure will be financed, constructed and donated to the Phoenix Zoo by the Society.

The monthly Society newsletter, The Rams Horn, is used to communicate with the membership and other interested parties about the activities of the Society and legislative or management actions relating to desert bighorn.

The ADBSS was organized in 1967 and incorporated June 11, 1969, in Phoenix, AZ

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS as a society dedicated to the advancement and recognition of the desert bighorn sheep, to support the management, conservation, restoration and utilization of the desert bighorn and to oppose any action or legislation that would adversely affect the desert bighorn or its habitat. The Society has grown from 62 charter members to approximately 300 sportsmen, conservationists, professional wildlife managers, educators, biologists, photographers and others interested in the desert bighorn.

ADBSS functions as a society working actively to improve the lot of bighorn in Arizona. Toward this objective the Society actively participates in several, usually five, habitat improvement construction projects each year. In these projects the Society members serve as volunteer labor working under the plans guidance and direction of professional wildlife management personnel of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The projects involve water development in the bighorn ranges throughout Arizona. The projects include cleaning, improvement, dam construction, wilt retention and diversion structures and ramadas to increase the quantity, quality and availability of water at natural waterhole sites. The projects have also included construction of catchment aprons, storage tanks and guzzlers.

In typical projects this season 15 to 18 society members have turned out to spend Saturday and Sunday working with 3 or 4 men from the Arizona Game and Fish Department. On several of the projects the crew has been aided by the mountain packing transportation corps of the Arizona Game and Fish Depart- ment consisting of the burros; Molly, Sara and Junior. The season for these projects consists of the mild months, January through April.

A typical project starts with a Friday night rendezvous at some convenient meeting place. With the crew assembled, a 4WD caravan proceeds to a campsite, usually remote, in the vicinity of the project work site. The camp sites are designated by the Game and Fish Department personnel who are usually there ahead of the crew's arrival to greet the crew with a cheery campfire having transported the construction materials into this trail head campsite ahead of time on Friday. The Game and Fish Department or Bureau of Land Management usually supplies the materials. In some cases, construction materials have been donated by Society members or other public spirited citizens.

After some campfire congeniality and instructions for the morning the crew rolls into sleeping bags to be lulled to sleep by the symphony of coyote howls and desert breezes playing on the camp scene lit by the incomparable Arizona night sky.

The first light of dawn on Saturday morning finds the bacon and eggs crackling in the pan and the air scented with a mingle of mesquite smoke and cowboy coffee. Lunches, canteens, cameras and tools are assembled. The back pack frames are loaded with construction materials and the crew struggles up the mountain to the project work site.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS The terrain is often too steep and rugged for the burros to negotiate so all the materials must be back packed up to the work site. A typical project haul may include 1,000 lbs. total, up to 1,000 feet in elevation, over a mile or more of rugged trail in man loads of a 75 lb. sack of ready-mix cement or a 5 gal. can of water. With these loads over these trails rest stops sitting on a cholla ball or leaning against a Saguaro feel go-o-od! When the burros are able to do the major portion of the hauling the crew usually back packs up part of the load just to keep in practice and help those handsome burros get the job done.

A full day Saturday is spent pounding big rocks into little rocks, shoveling out silt, mixing mortar and laying up masonry with reinforcing rods sunk into native bedrock. On some projects this work is aided by using a gasoline operated jack hammer. The blistered hands, sunburned necks and aching muscle moans are an integral part of the project. Often the commotion attracts a band of curious bighorn that appear on a ridge to peer down at the strange activity on "their" mountain. The crew is thus rewarded for its labor.

Saturday night camp fires produce a delightful aroma of steak broiling, cowboy beans, biscuits and coffee over mesquite coals. The dinner gets topped off with peach cobbler baked in the dutch oven. The tallest of hunting and fishing tales, a sprinkling of cowboy stories, the contentment of a day's work done and the satisfaction of a full stomach in the drowsy heat of campfire coals puts the crew into the sleeping bags.

Sunday morning comes up much like Saturday morning except for a lot more stiffness in the muscles. With some good natured prodding the crew is ready for work again.

Most projects are finished by about noon Sunday because the crew is larger and work's harder than the Game and Fish Department planners anticipated. Some of the real back breaker projects take a full day Sunday too. Camp breaks up Sunday afternoon or evening with plans for the next project or the next fishing trip.

This description in superlatives leads to the conclusion that the crews really enjoy working on the water hole projects. The Society feels that it is doing some real good for the bighorn and that the Game and Fish Department is a satisfied customer for its volunteer services.

The Society conducts an annual "Sheep Clinic" training session in September for the lucky hunters drawn for Sheep Hunt Permits. The "Sheep Clinic" is also open to the general public. Close, enthusiastic, cooperation from the wildlife management personnel of the Game and Fish Department and the various federal game ranges in Arizona and Nevada is an important ingredient to the success of the Clinic. In September 1971, the "Sheep Clinic" attracted 55 out of 84 or 65% of the permit holders for the best attendance to date. The "Sheep Clinic" includes lectures; movies; slides; field training; training

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS in the selection and use of spotting scopes and binoculars; equipment; physical conditioning; recognition of legal and trophy rams in field situa- tions; legal and trophy classification rules; and huntihg technique training. The Society believes that the hunters who have attended the "Sheep clinics" have attained a statistically better record of harvesting higher trophy score rams and avoiding the mistakes of shooting at illegal, immature rams than have the hunters who did not attend. The Society would like to see attendance at the "Sheep Clinic" become a mandatory requirement imposed on the hunters drawn by the Game and Fish Department.

The ADBSS publishes a monthly news letter, The am's Horn, as an information, communication and education vehicle for its members and friends. Contribu- tions of material for publication in the am's Horn are solicited.

The Society has cooperated with Tonto National Forest and Arizona Game and Fish Department personnel in two weekend surveys in the Superstition Wilderness. The first survey in May 1971 in the White Mountain region and the second in March 1972 in the Fish Creek Mountain region of Superstition Wilderness were devoted to searching for signs or survivors of former desert bighorn populations. No sheep were found and the only signs located were a

I number of years old. The surveys included study of habitat conditions to provide field information for possible future plans to reintroduce bighorn into their historic Superstition Wilde

In the past, the Society has also supplied volunteers to help in water hole counts of desert bighorn on the Cabeza Prieta Game Range.

The Superstition surveys and Cabeza Prieta counts are mentioned here to point out that the Society takes on other field activities in addition to the waterhole projects for the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The Society stands ready to consider any worthwhile project that will benefit the bighorn and will welcome suggestions or requests for assistance.

The Society has an active Legislative Chairman who serves a watchdog and leadership role to muster the strengths of the Society to support actions that favor, or oppose actions that in our judgment work to the detriment of the desert bighorn. The Legislative Chairman is currently studying the State reorganization bill that would put the Game and Fish Department into a Department of Natural Resources and monitoring its progress and status in the Legislature. A timely and hopefully effective position will be taken by the Society on this bill. The Society opposed S.1116, the Wild Horse and Burro bill. The Society hopes that its constructive opposition had something to do with the changes made that resulted in Public Law 92192. The law as passed is, in the society's judgment, more reasonable and provides for more realistic burro management that did S.1116. The Society is continuing to follow the development of burro management measures and hopes to work for the timely establishement of management plans that will control the competition between burros and bighorn for water, habitat space and forage that has been for some years and is still a serious problem in Arizona.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS In 1971-1972 the Society sent a representative to several Wilderness hearings. The Society supported the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness proposal with reservation of vehicle use over existing roads for necessary management functions including hunting. The Society supported the Grand Canyon Wilderness proposal and opposed the inclusion of additional desert bighorn range as proposed by other conservationists because public hunting is not permitted in National Park Wilderness Areas. In the Society's view, public hunting and the conservation activities of hunting sportsmen are important game management tools. The Society supported the Superstition Wilderness proposal generally but opposed establishment of additional improved access sites because increased use through these additional sites would impair the habitat quality necessary for reintroduction of bighorn.

The Society has an active Resolutions Chairman currently worlcing on three resolution possibilities:

1. Dealing with restructuring of big game violation fines calling for a range of $300 to $2,000 at judicial discretion to replace the present $300 maximum and put more deterrent teeth in possible punishment for violations. 2. Dealing with drawing of alternate hunters for desert bighorn permits to be replacements for hunters who are unable or choose not to make the hunt. 3. Considering the question of State reorganization that would put the Game and Fish Department in a Department of Natural Resources.

In past resolutions activities, the Society requested a change in waiting period for an unsuccessful desert bighorn hunter to re-enter the drawing from 2 years to 3 years, a change that has been adopted by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission. The Society, via a resolution, also vigorously opposed the Wild Horse and Burro bill as discussed earlier.

The Society maintains a Library of books, papers, reprints, Desert Bighorn Council Transactions, etc., and solicits contributions of copies of papers and manuscripts dealing with desert bighorn. Material from this Library is available on loan to members and friends of the Society. The Society maintains a scrap book that is a good collection of hunter success and failure reports and stories that probably will become the best source of resource material on this subject in the State.

The current major activity of the Society is a project to build an enclosure for an exhibit of desert bighorn in the Phoenix Zoo. The Society has been cooperating with the Game and Fish Department and the Phoenix Zoo for the past several years working toward this project. In February, 1972, the Game and Fish Department indicated that capture and handling techniques had been developed and refined to the point that high confidence of survival in good condition for captured sheep is possible and that therefore, they were ready to proceed with plans for the Zoo exhibit. The Game and Fish Department and the Phoenix Zoo have negotiated an appropriate care and

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS custody agreement and one handsome young ram about 2 years old has been delivered to the Phoenix Zoo. Now it is up to the Society to live up to its promise to build a suitable display enclosure at the Zoo on property that has been set aside by the Zoo for this purpose. Another ram and two ewes are expected to be included in the Phoenix Zoo and a similar band at the Tucson, Desert Sonoran Museum. It is expected that these additional desert bighorn will he captured and delivered to the Zoo and Museum in January 1973.

The Society has raised about 60% of its goal of $8,000 for materials for this enclosure. The members and friends of the Society will do the work, planning and building the enclosure. Society volunteer labor will be used to stretch and make efficient use of the dollars donated to this good cause. The enclosure involves a quarter mile of 8 ft. high mesh fence on steel posts.

The site includes a small butte with rocks, caves, and desert shrubs that will make a natural habitat display setting for the sheep. Work on the construction project will begin the second weekend in April and continue to approximately the end of May 1972. The Society solicits tax deductable contributions to this project made payable to "Phoenix Zoo- Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Project".

The Society sees three important objectives in the Zoo project:

1. A public educational display. 2. Animals under control available for scientific research and study into such important areas as factors related to lamb survival rates. 3. Offspring for use in other possible Zoo displays, for research projects or transplants.

Based on recent growth in membership, the Society Board of Directors has determined that the Society could and would like to offer some thesis or dissertation support to a worthy graduate student who would like to do a research project on a desert bighorn related topic. This support can take the form of financial support for equipment, materials, supplies or transportation. Manpower for field work could also be offered where that help would be appropriate. This support could enable a student to turn a good research project into an outstanding project. Suggestions of names of students or contacts with faculty dissertation advisers that would help locate a worthy candidate student in wildlife management- or a related curriculum are solicited to help get started on this project.

The Society conducts an Annual Awards Banquet in mid March. The program usually includes a distinguished speaker to educate and entertain with a desert bighorn talk and movies or slides. The hunters that harvested Boone and Crocket or Arizona Wildlife Trophies qualifying rams in the prior December Season are introduced and honored with appropriate trophies.

The Society membership is open. Anyone interested in desert bighorn sheep is welcomed and encouraged to join with a $5.00 annual membership contribution.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Mailing address:

The Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Inc. P.O. Box 5241 Phoenix, Arizona 85010

The Society wishes to express its thanks to the Desert Bighorn Council for the opportunity to participate in this distinguished scientific meeting with its unscientific but sincere comments. We hope we can be of service to the Desert Bighorn Council or to some of the Council members in your work to promote the advancement of knowledge concerning the Desert Bighorn Sheep and the long-range welfare of these magnificent animals.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Figure 2: Panel of experts answering questions from hunters during the 1970 Sheep Clinic. Left to right: Jack Walters, Jeff Seivers, John Russo, Jack Helvie, George Welch, Ed Shannahan, Jim Pierce, Dan Nasca, John Houzenga. The heads shown were part of one of the most outstanding displays of mounts, horns, hooves, droppings and equipment ever assembled and used to train hunters in identification and classification of trophy Desert Bighorn Sheep.

Photo Credit: Ned Smith, Arizona Game and Fish Department. CONCLUSIOI\I OF ME BIGHORN INVESTIGATION IN CALIFORNIA Y

Richard A. Weaver California Department of Fish and Game Sacramento, California

Abstract: The California Department of Fish and Game has conducted 3 112 years of field investigations to determine the current status of bighorn sheep in California. The population is now estimated at 3,500 bighorn in the state. This is close to the figure the Department had compiled over the years from various sources. However, more sheep were found in some locations that were known to exist. A few new locations for bighorn were added to our knowledge. Most of the desert mountain ranges seem to have experienced a substantial decline in numb,er of bighorn over the past quarter century.

Several ongoing programs to benefit sheep have resulted from the investigations. Wildlife water source surveillence, maintenance, and improvement programs are being conducted. California bighorn have been reintroduced to the Lava beds area of northeastern California with stock obtained from British Columbia. A game bulletin on the bighorn of California will be produced and a management plan developed from the investigations.

INTRODUCTION

In April 1969, I reported to this Council that a Senate resolution requested the Department of Fish and Game to make investigations as specified related to bighorn sheep and to develop a detailed species management plan. As a result of this mandate from our State Legislature, field investigations began in October of 1968, which have recently been concluded.

PROCEDURES AND METHODS

To determine the current status of bighorn we attempted to cover all bighorn habitat in the State. Aerial reconnaissance was made using the Department's Cessna 185, or when funds were available, by helicopter. This was principally for orientation, determining the location of water, and to read the trailing sign. In this manner some of the area could be eliminated and hiking efforts concentrated in the identified bighorn range. The investigation team recorded bighorn seen and sign observed on daily work forms. From this, estimates for each area were formulated. Some of the key water sources were later censused

-11 A contribution of Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration project (W 51 R) DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS by Department personnel and/or volunteer citizens and other agency personnel. This gave us additional information and improved our confidence in our estimates. For all areas covered we used the Hansen evaluation technique (Hansen 1972) to evaluate the bighorn habitat. We also compiled an inventory of all the water sources found. Infomation on competition, predation, parasites, food habits, and mortality were noted whenever there was an opportunity. A separate report for each mountain range was not practical and a single report for the state could not be detailed enough. Therefore, the state was divided into 14 geographic units (Mensch 1970) that were known to have bighorn populations. Administrative reports with bighorn and burro distribution maps have been completed for each of these areas and are available to anyone in this group that may need or have use for them.

RESTTLTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Populations

We estimate that there are 3,500 bighorn in California. Estimates by study area are given in Table I.

TABLE I

Bighorn Sheep Population Estimates by Study Area

Report Area Estimate

I San Diego County I1 Eastern Imperial County 111 Southern Riverside County IV Joshua Tree and Vicinity v Northeastern Riverside County VI Southwestern San Bernardino County VII Southeastern San Bernardino County VIII Northeastern San Eernardino County IX Northwestern San Bernardino and Southern Inyo Counties X Clark Mts/~ingstonMts. XI Death Valley and Vicinity XI1 Northern Inyo and Southern Mono XI11 San Gabriel Mts. XIV Sierra-Nevada Mts. TOTAL

*These study areas overlapped in the Dodd Spring area, accounting for duplication of 10 bighorn.

Gale Monson has compiled the bighorn populations for the Desert Bighorn ~ouncil'sbook, The Desert Bighorn, Its Life History, Ecology and Management.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS In this he has listed the populations by mountain ranges and county. So that this could be updated before final printing, I have extracted all of that information from the study area reports and compiled it in Table 11.

TABLE I1

Estimated Bighorn Populations By Mountain Ranges

Current Pre-Study MOUNTAIN RANGE Estimate Estimate(l957)

MONO COUNTY White Mount'ains 40 Sub-Total

INYO COUNTY Deep Springs 10 Inyo Mountains 30 Last Chance Mountains) 65 Dry Mountains ) Nopah Range 10 Argus Range 12 Death Valley and Vicinity Funeral Mountains 60 Black Mountains 110 Grapevine Mountains 50 Cottonwood Mountains 155 Panamint Mountains 228 Sub-Total (Death Valley Area)

Sierra Nevada Range* 215 Coso Range Transient Slate Range Transient Nelson Range Transient Sub-Total (Inyo County)

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Avawatz Mountains Bullion Mountains Transient Cady Mountains 35 Castle Peaks 15 Chemehuevi Mountains 10 Clark Mountain 20 Clipper Mountains Eagle Crags Transient Granite Mountains (near Amboy) 11 Hackberry Mountain Hart Mountain

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS TABLE I1 - Cont.

Current Pre-Study MOUNTAIN RANGE Estimate ~stimate(1957)

Kelso Mountain-Old Dad Peak 25 Kingston Mountains 30 Marble Mountains 20 New York Nountains 30 Old Dad Mountains 5 Old Woman Mountains 45 Providence Mountains 50 Piute Range 25 Sacramento Mountains 60 San Bernardino Mountains 115 Sheep Hole Mountains 12 Turtle Mountains 50 Woods Mountain 12 Bristol Mountains Transient Dead Mountains Transient Iron Mountains Transient Ivanpah Mountains Transient Mescal Range Transient Piute Mountains (so. of 66) Transient Transient Owlshead Mountains Transient 12 Ship Mountains Transient Transient Van Winkle Mountains Transient Vontrigger Hills Transient -- Granite Mountain (Fort Irwin) 0 11 Quail Mountains 0 4 Shadow Mountains (near Baker) 0 10 Stepladder Mountains 0 Transient Rodman-Newberry-0rd Mountain Area 0 0 Whipple Mountains 0 20 Sub-Total (San Bernadino County) 727

SAN BERNARDINO AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES San Gabriel Mountain Range

RIVERSIDE COUNTY Joshua Tree National Monument and Vicinity Little San Bernardino Mountains 50 Queen Mountain Area 25 Eagle Mountains 15 Coxcomb Mountains 10 Pinto Mountains (east of Queen Mt.) Transient Sub-Total (Joshua Tree National Monument and Vicinity) 100

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS TABLE I1 - Cont.

Current Pre-Study MOUNTAIN RANGE #Estimate Estimate(l957)

Chuckwalla Mountains 25 10 Granite and Palen Ranges 15 10 Orocopia Mts. and Mecca Hills 15 50 San Jacinto Mountains** 80 80 Maria Mountains 0 Transient Sub-Total (Riverside County) 235

RIVERSIDE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY Santa Rosa Mountains**

SAN DIEGO COUNTY** Anza Borrego Desert State Park and Vicinity San Ysidro Mountains 165 10 Vallecito Mountains 19 10 Tierra Blanco Mountains 104 100 Laguna Mountains ~ransient 5 Coyote Mountains / Transient Transient Jacumba Mountains 5 Inkopah Mountains -- Sub-Total (San Diego County) 391

IMPERIAL COUNTY Chocolate Mountains Picacho Peaks Sub-Total (Imperial County) 162

TOTAL ESTIMATED POPULATION 3,510

* California Bighorn; rare (Sub-Total 215) ** Peninsular Bighorn; rare (Sub-Total 971)

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Two subspecies of bighorn are listed as rare on both the Federal and State lists of rare and endangered species. These are the Peninsular bighorn, which we estimate 970 animals occupying the desert slopes of the peninsular ranges of Riverside and San Diego Counties, and California bighorn on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Range which number about 215 animals (Dunaway 1971).

POPULATION TREND

Generally the desert bighorn population trend has been downward ever since white man has been on the scene. Don McLean, Department of Fish and Game Biologist (retired), began compiling information on bighorn in 1939. From his notes we have determined that bighorn populations have been lost in some ranges and declined in others in the last 25 years. The Ord Mountains, Granite Mountains within Fort Irwin, Whipple Mountains, and the Big and Little Maria Mountains no longer have resident bighorn populations, but did have populations in 1946.

Some of the larger desert mountain ranges that we assumed must have substantial bighorn numbers because of their size, semi-wilderness aspect, and numerous springs, fell far below our expectations. Examples are the Panamint Range, Inyo Range, and White Mountains. Deep Springs, Inyo County, is a place where this decline has been documented. E. H. Ober, (Game Warden, deceased) reported seeing 60 bighorn in the fall of 1931. McLean estimated 40 in 1946. McLean saw 29 in June 1951. We were informed that bighorn were not being seen at Deep Spring as they once were. The study team first made helicopter flights into the area. No bighorn were observed. We then hiked into three separate locations near Deep Springs and found fresh sign of one small band. We Currently estimate the population here at 10.

California bighorn sheep numbers have declined also. Jones (1950) estimated 390 for the Sierra Nevada Range, and the most recent estimates by Dave Dunaway, USFS biologists, (1971) is 215.

Contrary to this general downward trend in the bighorn population we have found some very thrifty populations. These are in the herds of the San Gabriel Mountains and in the Peninsular bighorn ranges from the San Jacinto Mountains through the Santa Rosa Range and south through the desert side of San Diego County to Mexico. These are ranges that are better watered than most ranges of desert bighorn. Bighorn may have even increased in these ranges in recent years. At least the area of Jack ~urner'sstudy in the Santa Rosa Mountains has had a substantial increase. Where I could always find a band of 14 ewes and lambs in 1954-1955, I found the band totaled 28 in 1970.

Trend Factors

Drought seems to be the single factor that can be identified for the decline in bighorn in much of our desert area. Lowell Sumner (1957) in the Report on the Joshua Tree Bighorn Survey wrote, "on the basis of the flimsy evidence to date, it would seem that the population is between 100-200 animals. That is

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS considerably below the carrying capacity of the forage, but in excess of the water resources., If so, the conslusion seems to follow that more bighorn will die off to reduce the population to a point compatible with the water supply." This has come to pass and is also a factor in other locations. ,

Drought is not new in our desert. We have had droughts before and bighorn have survived. However, when water sources are dry for extended periods we found adult bighorn making it, but no young sheep were surviving. When this condition persists for years, and finally the last sheep is gone, that portion of the range is lost to sheep even if the water is restored. Examples are the Big Maria, Little Maria, and McCoy Mountains, where there were sheep in 1946 (Werden, 1970). I believe that the bighorn in these ranges were dependent on one large tinaja, Mohave Tank, that was dry for years, and the population perished and did not return. There are no sheep in these mountain ranges today!

Competition on bighorn range exists in many forms. Man just taking up space and displacing bighorn is occurring in a number of places: freeways have been built through bighorn ranges; houses have been built on bighorn habitat; mining is occurring in bighorn habitat; and the recreation vehicles and backpackers are penetrating the bighorn range in increasing numbers. Many have eluded to this; i.e., Dunaway 1971, Welles & Welles 1961, Light 1971, Tevis 1959 and 1961, Duncan 1960, Van den Akker 1960, and Blong 1967.

Feral burros are competing with bighorn and other wildlife in many places. We have determined and mapped the extent of burro range. Burro have increased their range since 1951 when a law to give them total protection was enacted. ' Sheep have declined in numbers as burro encroached on previously burro-free range. A location called Sheep Spring in the Providence Mountains was free of burro in 1953, the first time I visited it. Waterhole counts were made there during our investigations. Twenty or more burros are using the spring and have eliminated all perennial grasses near the springs. Sheep numbers have declined by eO percent in this period of approximately 15 years. The burrs is the dominant animal and bighorn will wait for burro to leave, or bighorn will leave if burro come in while they are drinking. This has been observed at the spring described above. Therefore, if there is insufficient water, there is direct competition for water. If a tinaja is the only source of water, burro have been known to totally usurp the water and then leave, but sheep are reluctant to leave their preferred habitat of good escape terrain. This problem has long been recognized (Dixon 1939) but it is not just a case of burro or bighorn. Welles said it best (Welles and Welles 1961): "For the sake of the entire biota, the burros must be controlled".

Cattle are not a problem in most bighorn ranges of the State. However, a few locations particularly near water has shown some serious depletion of forage.

Poaching is a continuing problem. There is planned poaching for a trophy and target of opportunity poaching by recreationists or deer hunters. The effect on the herds cannot be assessed, but some declining remnant herds cannot . tolerate additional drain.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS We found scabies on one ram in the Kingston Mountains. This was the first identification of scabies in California in modern times. They weren't fatal to the old fellow; an ore truck was.

PROGRESS

The Department of Fish and Game has compiled an Index of Wildlife water sources, something like the Park Service has for Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments. Our bighorn investigations has added materially to this Index. We have also made many specific recommendations relative to water development sites for bighorn. As aresult, the ~epartment'sdevelopment program has been accelerated in bighorn habitat. In addition, citizen volunteers are now actively engaged in a program of waterhole inspections, maintenance, and under the leadership of Fish and Game personnel, water development. The program is new; however, it has chalked up several worthwhile accomplishments to date including installation of two large water catchments in bighorn habitat. The Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep and the Southern Council of Conservation Clubs enlists the volunteers and assigns a desert mountain range to an individual to be responsible for maintaining the water sources and to make waterhole counts. That individual recruits whatever crew he may need. Inspection reports are made to the Department on forms provided.

We have worked with the Division of Highways Engineers, and have been successful in getting freeway fencing and culverts modified in sheep habitat. We have planned with the Highway Department to build two 10,000 gallon catchments, using highway runoff water. This water shall be piped outside of the freeway fence to a drinker. We also worked out an understanding on a spring that is piped to a highway public drinking fountain that is also important to bighorn--that if the open spring for bighorn becomes insufficent, we can take water from a valve provided to supplement the bighorn water.

In the administrative reports for each study area, we have identified the bighorn habitat that is in private ownership, and recommend it be acquired in tovernment ownership. As a result, if the Department budget requests are approved, there will be $10,000 for land acquisition for bighorn this coming fiscal year.

You will recall that we found a tinaja in Imperial County in the fall of 1968 that had been trapping bighorn and contained 34 skulls. This was remedied immediately and bighorn waterhole counts have been made there since.

Our investigation in the San Gabriel Mountains was a cooperative effort with the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service is continuing investigations in the area. Some students have been directed to make investigations in this area with gratifying results. A wealth of new information has been assembled that will be used by the Forest Service in updating the bighorn habitat management plan and to make wise administrative decisions.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Anza Borrego State Park, with our encouragement, conducted a very successful waterhole count during 'August 1971. Data gathered has added to our knowledge and convinced us that our estimates for the area were realistic or on the conservative side.

You have all been made aware of the cooperative effort of the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of Fish and Game to make the first reintroduction efforts of bighorn into California. Ten California bighorn were placed in an 1,100-acre enclosure in northeastern California.

A game bulletin on the bighorn of California will be the product of the past 3 1/2 years of field investigations. A species management plan will also be made. I am optimistic that with an active management program, that we will not only preserve and perpetrate the bighorn, but that we can increase their numbers and distribution.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS LITERATURE CITED

Blong, B., 1967. Desert Bighorn and People in the Santa Rosa Mountains California-Nevada Section, The Wildlife Society Transactions, pp. 66-70.

Dixon, J.S., and L.E. Sumner 1939. A Survey of Desert Bighorn in Death Valley National Monument. California Fish and Game, Vol. 25, pp. 22-95

Dunaway, D. J. 1971. Human Disturbance as a Limiting Factor of Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. North American Wild Sheep Conference Transactions (1) pp. 165-173.

Duncan, G. E., 1960. Human Encroachment on Bighorn Habitat. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions (11) pp. 38-40.

Jones, F. L. and G. Flittner and R. Gard, 1957. Report On a Survey of Bighorn Sheep in the Santa Rosa Mountains, Riverside County, California. California Fish and Game, 43 (3) pp. 179-191.

Jones, F. L. 1950. A Survey of Sierra Nevada Bighorn, Sierra Club Bulletin 35 (6) pp. 29-76.

Light, J.T., 1971. An Ecological View of Bighorn Habitat on Mt. San Antonio, N.A. W. S. C. Transactions (1) pp. 150-157.

Mensch, J.L. 1970. Survey of Bighorn Sheep in California. D.B.C. Transactions Vol. 14, pp. 123-126.

Sumner, L.E., 1959. Report on the Joshua Tree Bighorn Survey 1957. N.P.S. Files.

Tevis, L.T., 1961. Battle to Save Bighorn Range in the Santa Rosa Mountains of California D.B.C. Transactions (5) pp. 103-107.

. 1959. Mans Effect on Bighorn in the San Jacinto-Santa Rosa Mountains D.B. C. Transactions (3) pp. 69-75.

Van den Akker, J.B. 1960. Human Encroachment on Bighorn Habitat D.B.C. Transactions (11) pp. 38-40.

Weaver, R.A. 1969. Bighorn Research in California D.B.C. Transactions (13) pp. 68-70.

Welles, R.E. and F.B. Welles 1961. The Bighorn of Death Valley National Monument Park Service, Fauna Series (6) pp. 242.

Werden, G. 1970. Personal Communication.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS iVWADA'S DESERT BIGHORY SHEEP STATUS REPORT 1971

Jack R. Cooper Nevada Department of Fish and Game Las Vegas, Nevada

Abstract: Since ~evada'sfirst legal hunt for desert bighorn sheep in 1952, 19 special seasons have been held. Number of special hunting permits issued have varied from over 100 to a low of 48 in 1971, 43 of which were awarded to residents, five to nonresidents.

During the 1971 season, combined resident and nonresident hunter success was 25 per cent, some six per cent below the 19 year average.

A total population of 13 desert bighorn sheep now reside within the Dutch Creek Enclosure on Mt. Grant. Six lambs were added to the herd in 1971 with overwinter losses tallied at five lambs and five ewes for a total reduction of four animals.

The 1971 fall bighorn sheep helicopter survey was conducted between November 1 and December 16, 1971. A total of 14 flight days totaling 70.5 hours were expended to classify 336 sheep in 21 mountain ranges in four counties.

1971 Hunt Result

Nevada has completed its nineteenth bighorn sheep season since 1952. To date, 473 sheep have been harvested under the tag quota system by 1,528 hunters, for an average hunter success of 30.9 per cent. Hunts have been held during eight months of the year covering the fall/winter/spring periods. ~ajorityof the hunts have been held during the ~ovember/~ecember/~anuar~' period, with the highest hunter success in November and December.

The majority of the 1971 bighorn sheep season was held from November 20 through December 12, and then December 18 through the 31 for Area 27A on the Nellis Air Force Bombing Range. There was a total of 43 resident and five nonresident tags available in ten hunt areas. The 48 tag quota was a 20 per cent reduction from the previous year, the lowest quota southern Nevada areas

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS have had since 1956 when hunts were still in their experimental stages.

The number of resident and nonresident tag applications has continued to decline for the third consecutive year, with the mzjor reduction in resident inquiries. The decline of applications could be attributed to the economics of our time combined with a price increase of tags to $25.00.

Combined hunter success for both resident and nonresident was 25 per cent, which was six per cent below the 19-year average. Nonresident success has continued to exceed resident, with 80 per cent as compared to 18.6 per cent for residents in 1971. The fact that nonresident hunters frequently use the services of experienced guides, while residents do not, has contributed greatly to the difference in success. Again this year, three hunt areas reported no harvest, though legal rams were seen by hunters in each area. This year, the highest hunter success was achieved in Area 27B3, with a 60 per cent success on a five tag quota. (See Table I.)

The overall age of rams harvested improved considerably from the previous year with the average age of the twelve rams harvested being nine years, ages ranging from six to eleven years. Two rams were under seven years of age, but all remained legal by surpassing the minimum Boone and Crockett score. This portion of ~evada'sTrophy Ram regulation defines a legal ram to be seven years old or have a Boone and Crockett score of 144 points, using the score of the largest horn doubled. This year, six-year-old or younger animals comprised 16.7 per cent of the harvest, the lowest per cent of young rams harvested for the past three seasons.

Whether the trend towards harvesting older age classes is due to an increased effort of hunters to identify trophy rams as the result of more refined hunter indoctrination courses and better public information of the principles of the trophy hunt or not can only be answered by time and more effort on the part of game managers.

Hunters reported expending an average of 11.4 days in pursuit of their game. Successful hunters expended 11.8 days, while unsuccessful hunters expended 8.7 days.

TRANSPLANT PROGRAM

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS HELICOPTER SURVEY

Bighorn sheep helicopter surveys have been conducted on Nevada ranges since 1969 to provide valuable information on herd composition, available trophy rams in the population, distribution and estent of range, locate new waters and identify key habitat areas. Since 1969, four surveys have been conducted during the fall and spring periods. An evaluation of survey periods as they apply to Nevada was reported on by Tsukamoto (1971).

The 1971 fall bighorn sheep helicopter survey was conducted between November 1 and December 16. A total of 14 flight days totaling 70.5 hours were expended to classify 336 sheep in 21 mountain ranges for a ram/ewe/lamb ratio of 70/100/24. (See Table 11.) Cost per sheep observed, based on hourly helicopter charges, was $17.72, just slightly higher than the 1970 fall survey.

Age structure of all male sheep observed followed a graphic curve similar to data from the 1969 and 1970 fall surveys with exception of the four- and five- year-old animals. It is highly probable that some error is still taking place in aging.animls from the air, particularly in this age class. Table 111 also indicates a consistency in classifying the older age or trophy type rams in the area.

One adult ewe of three marked sheep trapped in the Highland Range during June 1970 was observed during the helicopter survey approximately two and one-half miles southeast of the trap site between Horse Spring and Cow Spring at an elevation of 4900 feet. There were only 16 sheep counted in the Highland Range on the 1971 helicopter flights.

Ten survey units have been surveyed each fall since the inception of the bighorn sheep helicopter census program. Patterns are beginning to develop which will provide a better understanding of population trends, lamb survival, per cent of legal rams in the herds and age structure. In order to minimize the aging error of the rams, ages are presented by two-year increments.

Desert bighorn sheep in Nevada are basically confined to four southern counties - Nye, Esmeralda, Lincoln and Clark. Portions of these areas were further divided into three geographical divisions representing the major bighorn sheep habitat types, to be referred to as the Northern, Central and Southern divisions, with the divisions further divided by mountain ranges into' survey units.

Northern division data points to an upward population trend based on increasing numbers of bighorn sheep seen on aerial flights and on ram age profile, which indicates a good age distribution. The lamb/ewe ratio trend took a downward dip in 1970 and a slight recovery was apparent in 1971. Per cent of legal rams found in the ram segment of the population shows an upswing for 1971 (Table IV). Assuming age structure of the population's ram segment is indicative of the sheep population as a whole, it shows good lamb

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS survival and yearling recruitment to the breeding herd with good representa- tion of mature and over-mature age classes.

Central division ram ages show a peak and fall in population trend with an improving lamb/ewe ratio, while per cent of legal rams in the population has remained low. Ram age structure in the Central division indicates a young population heavily weighted in the yearling and two-year-old classes with the older age classes in a rapid decline, indicating several years of poor lamb survival and/or poor herd recruitment (Table V) .

Southern division age data shows a general downward trend in bighorn numbers as reflected in poor herd recruitment to the breeding population. Lamb production through the years has been comparatively good; however, survival of younger animals appears to have been very erratic. This gives the impression of a larger number of legal rams in the herd while, in reality, older age classes are only making up a larger percentage of the population and total numbers are dwindling (Table VI) .

Age composition data of male bighorn sheep observed during the three fall helicopter surveys used in geographical division analysis compares very closely with age composition data gathered from all male sheep observations for all ranges censused to date with the helicopter during the fall period. Therefore, the three-division analysis appears reliable for describing sheep populations in southern Nevada. (See Tables VII and VIII.)

Comparison of ground counts made at the Boulder Beach leach fields during July and helicopter counts made in the River Mountain survey unit November of 1970 and 1971 suggests several interesting questions. It is noted that ground counts show a higher lamb ratio than helicopter counts (which would be expected), while ram ratios increased from 240 to 270 per cent between July and November counts.

These questions come to mind:

1. Were we sampling the Boulder Beach leach field too early in the summer period in order to adequately sample the ram segment of the population? Are rams staying away from this particular water source or is it a combination of the two alternatives? 2. Are rams summering in other ranges and moving into the River Mountains just prior to the breeding season due to concentrations of ewes?

It was noted that 65 per cent of the rams seen at the leach field in July were one- and two-year-old rams and the remainder (35%) were three- and four- year-old rams (Table IX).

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS

TABLE 111

AGE OF MALE BIGHORN SHEEP OBSERVED

AGE CLASS OF ADULT RAMS OBSERVED (FALL 1971)

AGE -1- 2345- 6- 78- 9 Total

No. 26 19 18 7 19 8 9 11 3 121

% 21 16 15 G 16 7 7 9 2

AGE CLASS OF ALL MALE SHEEP OBSERVED (FALL 1971)

AGE 1/2Lamb L 2 -345- 6- 7 -8 10- Total No. 1 142

% 1

, 20

L 1 i 1 1 1 I t I 1 Lambs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10f AGE CLASS OF ALL MALE SHEEP OBSERVED

COMPOSITION

Fall 1969 13 9.5 14 20 9.5 8 7 5 10 2 2

Fall 1970 17.5 16 10 11.5 8.5 13 3 7 6 3 4.5 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS TABLE IV

NORTHERN BIGHORN SHEEP DIVIS ION

I ,.A Survey Numbers

. - ,. % Legal Rams :.- - .- - .- A .- ;-- - .-. Lamb/Ewe Ratio 0 ------.-. -*

Ratio No. of % of Year Sample -Ewes -Lambs Lamb/Ewe Rams Legal Rams Legal Rams

1969 50

1970 81

1971 118

# J 1 Lambs 1 -.2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-lot.'

Age Classes Year 112 Lambs % Age Class of the Male Sheep Population

1969 20 20 20 15 20

1970 9 19 31 18 12

1971 13 . 25 18 26 16 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS TABLE V

CENTRAL BIGHORN SHEEP DIVIS ION

A - ~amb/EweRatio

Ratio No. of % of Year Sample Ewe Lambs Lamb/Ewe Rams Legal Rams Legal Rams

. 45 - ,/ - *\ / \ / 1969

----- 1970 30 - -. - - .-I971

. . 15 / ! r) / \ / \ 1

0 I 1 Lambs 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-1&

Age Classes

Year 112 Lambs % Age Class of the Male Sheep Population

1969 21 33 24 17 0

1970 9 34 31 18 6

1971 14 48 14 21 3

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS 75

TABLE VI

SOUTHERN BIGHORN SHEEP DIVIS ION

-- - 4 Survey Numbers .- .- , - -~amb/~weRatio -/ -.-- . .- .. -.. -

1969 1970 1971

Ratio No. of % of Year Sample Ewe Lambs Lamb/Ewe Rams Legal Rams Legal Rams

1969

1970

1971

1cn 2o

!k 0 Z S cn 10 8

U H 0 I I I I I Lambs 1- 2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-lot Age Classes Year 1/2 Lambs % Age Class of the Male Sheep Population

1969

1970

1971 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS TABLE VII

AGE COMPOSITION OF ALL MALE SHEEP OBSERVED DURING THE THREE FALL HELICOPTER SURVEYS

Lambs 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-lo+ Age Classes

COMPOS ITION Fall 1969 17.4 26.1 20.3 Fall 1970 13.2 23.2 29.5 Fall 1971 14.8 31.7 17.6

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS 77 TABLE VIII AGE COMPOSITION OF MALE SHEEP OBSERVED DURING THE THREE FALL HELICOPTER SURVEYS ON THE NORTHERN, CENTRAL & SOUTHERN UNITS

A 1 I 4 I 1 -- Lambs 1-2 3 -4 5-6 7-8 9-10 +

Age Classes

COMPOS ITION Fall 1969 18.6 25.7 20.0 15.7

Fall 1970 12.2 23.5 30.4 14.8

Fall 1971 15.5. 33.7 14.5 20.0

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS TABLE IX

BOULDER BEACH (RIVER MOUNTAINS)

Ground and Helicopter Herd Composition Counts

1971 Fall Sample -Ram -Ewe Lamb Ratio

Ground 129 27 66 36 39/100/55

He1 icop ter 45 19 18 8 105/100/44

1970 Fall

Ground

He1 icopter

1969 Fall

Ground

-1- Sample too small to be valid. DISEASE LOSSES IF4 DESERT BIGtlOfU4 SHEEP BLACK GAP AREA

Tommy L. Hailey Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Marfa, Texas

R. G. Marburger Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Kerrville, Texas

Dr. R. M. Robinson Texas A & M University College Station, Texas

Dr. Keith A. Clark Texas A & M University College Station, Texas

Abstract: The loss of 18 desert bighorn sheep was recorded between August 26, 1971 and October 21, 1971, on the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area. Necropsy of some of the animals revealed severe pneumonia. It was also suspected that bluetongue was a predisposing factor in the development of the pneumonia. The remaing sheep were treated by adding soluble tetracycline powder to the drinking water. The herd was also provided a supplemental feed of 20 per cent protein range cubes 112-inch in size.

Deaths occurred in the desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) at the Black Gap 'Wildlife Management Area between August 26, 1971 and October 21, 1971. This herd originated from stock transplanted from the Kofa Mountain Range of western Arizona in an effort to reestablish bighorns in west Texas. Reproduc- tion has been excellent and the herd has increased. A group of 20 animals

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS was released during 1971 for the first free stocking effort. The remainder of the sheep were contained in a pen approximately one mile square.

The first loss was an old ram (Sanchoj and death was considered to be due LO old age, since some of the molar teeth in the skull were eroded indicating that periodontal abscesses had been present at the time of death. The assumption that death resulted from the dental problems was probably errone- ous, since during the month following the discovery of Sancho's skeleton, other losses occurred. Mr. Marburger, Wildlife Biologist, was dispatched to the area after two other bighorns had been found dead. An old ewe was collected, which had clinical signs so severe that survival was improbable. The necropsy revealed a severe pneumonia and bacteriological cultures were taken from the lung. These cultures were transported to the Wildlife Disease Laboratory, located at Texas A & 1"I University, and it was subsequently revealed that the offending pathogens were Staphylococcus sp. and Corynebac- terium sp., both of which were sensitive to the same antibiotic, tetracycline. It was also suspected at the time that bluetongue was a predisposing factor in the development of the pneumonia. Death losses are tabulated in Table 1.

Armed with large quantities of antibiotic and bluetongue baccine, Drs. Robinson and Clark and Mr. Marburger then traveled to the Black Gap Area, arriving after a total of six bighorns had died. The remaining herd was treated by adding soluble tetracycline powder to the water after thorough cleaning of the containers located in the pen. Deaths cont since the weather consistently refused to cooperate and several inches of rain fell allowing the sheep to obtain water in places other than the artificial water source thus avoiding treatment. The sheep pasture was searched for dead sheep and necropsies were performed on two adult rams. One of the necropsies revealed changes highly suggestive of bluetongue. Six sheep were vaccinated against bluetongue (by using the capture gun), with the hope that insect vectors would aid in the dissemination of the vaccine virus within the herd. Two additional days were devoted to walking through the pasture and filling all waterholes with rocks in an effort to force the sheep to the medicated water.

After walking through the upper reaches of the pasture, it was decided to analyze the rumen contents of dead sheep to determine the nutritional level within the pen. The results of the rumen analyses were as follows:

14 yr. Ewe 10 yr. Ram 6 yr. Ram Crude Protein 14.9 9.1 10.2 Digestible Protein 11.7 6.1 7.2 Cell Wall 45.3 44.7 44.2 Calcium 2.9 5.8 5.6 Phosphorus 0.8 1.1 1.4

The sheep have been on 38 per cent protein range blocks since they were placed in the enclosure during 1957. After the first dead sheep were located, additional supplemental feed was made available both inside and outside the

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TMNSACTIONS Table 1. Desert Bighorn Sheep Found Dead On Black Gap Area, September and October 1971

Date Believed to Sex Age Date Found Dead Have Died

Male (Sancho) 17 years Sept. 7, 1971 About Aug. 26, 1971

Male 18 months Sept. 20, 1971 Sept. 18, 1971

Female 8-9 years Sept. 22, 1971 Sept. 21, 1971

Female (collected) 14+ years Sept. 23, 1971 Sept. 23, 1971

Female 2 years Sept. 26, 1971 Sept. 25, 1971

Male Lamb Sept. 29, 1971 Sept. 29, 1971

Male (necropsy) 6 years Sept. 30, 1971 Sept. 30, 1971 (found NE corner)

Male (necropsy) 10 years Oct. 2, 1971 Oct. 1, 1971 (ram on west side that was weak)

Male Lamb Oct. 2, 1971 Oct. 1, 1971

Male 5 years Oct. 6, 1971 Oct. 5, 1971

Female Lamb Oct. 8, 1971 8ct. 6, 1971

Male Lamb Oct. 8, 1971 Oct. 7, 1971

Male 18 months Oct. 8, 1971 Oct. 8, 1971

Female Lamb Oct. 9, 1971 Oct. 6, 1971

Male 18 months Oct. 9, 1971 Oct. 9, 1971

Female Lamb Oct. 12, 1971 Oct. 9, 1971

Male (outside pen) 6 years Oct. 17, 1971 About Oct. 1971

Female 8 years Oct. 22, 1971 Oct. 21, 1971

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS enclosure. Twenty per cent protein range cubes in 112 inch size were fed to the sheep. The amount of feed was steadily increased to where the sheep were taking from 1/2 to 1 pound of feed per animal per day inside the enclosure. The sheep outside the enclosure would only take the feed occasionally. Observations of the sheep inside the pen indicated they were improving in body condition, Following treatment, losses abated and none have died since October 21, 1971.

Analysis and Interpretation

The disease process in this herd was the result of a complex of several different influences. It occurred after the breeding season, affecting (and killing) most, if not all, of the mature rams in the captive herd. The rigors of breeding season appear to have been a cause of increased susceptibility in this age group. The nutritional level of the sheep pasture appears to be very low, resulting in lowered resistance in the captive herd. At least two species of pathogenic bacteria now exist in the sheep and can be expected to remain as silent infections in the herd. Bluetongue, althouh not proven to be a factor in this outbreak, is suspected to have been present. All these factors apparently combined to produce the observed syndrome. In this instance it appears that control of the bacterial pathogens resulted in abatement of losses even though this was but one of the factors responsible for the observed disease and complex.

Recommendations

Control: The sheep should be kept on medicated water until cold weather reduces the possibility of vector transmission among the sheep herd.

Prevention:

(1) The main brood herd of bighorns should be splet into several small bands, rather than being held in one location. This would prevent diseases from becoming disseminated throughout the entire herd.

(2) Once the main herd of sheep is reduced, fertilization of the sheep pasture should be done to increase the nutritional value of the plants which occur there. The smallest number of sheep possible should be maintained on this pasture for a period of at least three consecutive years after fertilization.

(3) 'All penned sheep should be kept where artificial water sourves are the only source of water for treatment purposes.

(4) A regular bluetongue vaccination program should be initiated to keep the vaccine virus circulating in the herd.

(5) Regular release of sheep should be planned to prevent herd numbers from increasing to the point of being detrimental to the nutritional value of .the

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS plants within the enc1osure.s. An alternative to this is a regular feeding program being instituted to insure proper nutritional levels for herd maintenance and reproduction.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS PROGRESS REPORT - lAVA BEDS BIGHORI RE-ESTABLISWOIT

James A. Blaisdell Research Biologist National Park Service

Abstract: California bighorn (Ovis canadenis californiana) have been returned to the lava beds of Northeastern California after an absence of 60 years. Two rams and eight ewes captured in British Columbia and transported to the transplant area by truck are alive and flourishing. At this early stage, results of last fall's breeding season cannot be evaluated, but hopefully we will have an increase soon. To date, all things point to a successful transplant, and we are optimistic about the future of bighorn in the Klamat

INTRODUCTION

Last year at the Council meeting in Santa Fe, you were apprised of a plan to re-establish native California bighorn in Lava Beds National Monument and, possibly, adjacent areas (Blaisdell, 1971). Through a program of interagency cooperative studies, construction, planning, transportation and manpower assistance, the bighorn now have returned to their ancient and native habitat. This report is presented to point out some of the interesting particulars, and to illustrate some of the appreciation we have of certain people and agencies for a job well done.

DISCUSSION AND RESULTS

The history of early-day bighorn populations in the lava beds is vague, to say the least. We know there were fair numbers during the early part of the twentieth century because there are written accounts of poaching and of the last bighorn being observed about 1913. I reported last year that bighorn skulls have been found in considerable numbers in ice caves in the monument. Bighorn Cave, where 28 skulls were found, was discovered only about three years ago, and there likely are other caves that have not been located to this day.

The recommendation of the Leopold Committee (1963) that bighorn be re-established in Lava Beds National Monument gave needed impetus to plans already being

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS formulated by Lava Beds Personnel. During the year since our last meeting, the events accomplished have been rapid and most satisfying. The sheep-proof fence enclosing a total of 1,100 acres (700 on National Park Service lands and 40C on U. S. Forest Service lands) was completed; a 3,000 gallon guzzler and apron was completed by Lava Beds personnel, and it filled to overflowing by rainfall and snowfall by January 7; the Forest Service has a 3,000 gallon guzzler nearly completed, and will finish it this spring; the Forest Service and the National Park Service have installed 11 Parker three-step transects within the enclosure, and the Park Service has built three 1/100th acre exclosures within the area. Some of the heavy equipment and personnel needed for these jobs were supplied by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife at the adjacent Tule Lake National Waterfowl area, and the Soil Conservation Service has provided us with an excellent soil profile of the entire pen area. Plans for the acquisition of the bighorn from British Columbia were carried-out principally by the California Department of Fish and Game and even more particularly by Wally Macgregor.

On October 22, 1971 the real excitement began. Dick Weaver and Chuck Hansen, neither of whom need any introduction to the Council members, assisted the Canadian Wildlife Service in trapping the bighorn from the Junction Herd on the Fraser River, about 50 miles south of the town of Williams Lake. As the ten bighorn, two rams and eight ewes, were loaded into the California Fish and Game Department truck, they were aged, sexed, ear tagged and given penicillin shots. That afternoon, Dick and Chuck began driving, and they drove non-stop except for meals until they arrived at Lava Beds National Monument the next day about 3:00 p.m. The bighorn were released immediately, and they scattered into at least four small groups. We were fortunate, I think, in receiving ten relatively young, healthy sheep. The ewes ranged in age from 2-112 to 6-112, with four of them being 2-112. The rams were 4-1/2 and 1-1/2. All were in fine shape, and appear so today. One bit of humor was the receipt of the form "United States Department of Agriculture Report of Animals, Poultry or eggs offered for Importation." It listed the bighorn as follows: "Number-ten; breed-bighorn; species-sheep; purpose of importation- breeding," Well, if all goes according to the permit, we'll be doing fine!

Some interesting observations of the bighorn were made after their release. After observing one ewe hit the fence very hard upon her release, and not seeing all ten bighorn at one time until November 2 (10 days after the release date and in two groups visible from one observation point), we began to wonder if we had lost one. Ed o'~ei.11,Wildlife Biologist for the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Tulelake, could count no more than nine from the air. All ten were seen together for the first time on November 12, 20 days after their release. Eleven deer were observed in the same field with the sheep that day.

Golden and bald eagles were numerous in the vicinity until mid-January when crippled and dead waterfowl from the hunting season were cleaned up. The eagles were observed soaring above the bighorn pen on numerous occasions, but

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS never was there any indication that they were interested in these animals. Coyotes have also been seen among the sheep but paid no apparent interest in them. Bobcat tracks are observed regularly, and now and then a cougar is reported in the enclosure. So far, there have been no predator problems and we hope the story will be no different come lambing season.

To date, the sheep have not used guzzler water. Except for very short periods, the weather has been cold, and pothole water or snow has been available.

For one period of approximately ten days during January, the large ram and one ewe split off from the rest of the herd and were off by themselves. No indications of breeding were observed nor expected. However, on February 2 the rams were reported seen standing off, then hitting head-on as they would do during the rut. The young ram has been observed several times attempting to mount ewes, but this probably means little. No successful breeding attempts have been noted at any time during the October 23 to April 3 report period.

Presently, we are awaiting two new indications that these animals are "at home". The first sign will be their use of water at the guzzlers, and second will be the birth and survival of lambs.

This, of course, brings up subjects about which long reports could be written. In short, there may be predation by cougars, bobcats, coyotes and eagles; poaching by that bigger predator, man; parasites from past and present domestic sheep use of this and adjacent range; diseases, one of which has been evident this past year in nearby domestic sheep (blue tongue); and perhaps loss of lambs caused by any upset of the sheep through their change in food, climate, and general living conditions. We have begun watching for salt needs, and have placed plain, iodized, sulfur and trace mineral salt blocks in the enclosure.

As mentioned previously, predation is one of the possible decimating factors in this project. Lava Beds National Monument is surrounded on all sides by domestic sheep grazing allotments; we, in fact, have one life-lease remaining within the monument. The bighorn re-establishment attempt is being watched very closely by local livestock people and other people interested in conservation to determine the effects of President Nixon's recent ban on predator poisoning. Of course, we know what the National Park Service long standing policy has been on predator control. And so we are "in the spotlight." Should we lose a lamb or two, you know what the scream will be, no matter what policy we have followed for the past 40 years.

We cannot finish this report without recognizing the agencies involved in this program: the U. S. Forest Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service; we also recognize the Canadian agencies who assisted in this project. If we were to acknowledge the man most responsible for the project, we would have to give credit first and foremost to Joe Kennedy, Superintendent of Lava Beds National Monument. He pushed the project and saw

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TMNSACTIONS it through to completion. The man responsible for the excellent workmanship on fences and the Park Service guzzler was Leon Jackson, Maintenance Supervisor, Lava Beds National Monument. His dedication in doing a perfect job on everything he oversees is iiiGTe than commendable. It wouid be impossible to name all the others involved: I think they will all receive enough satisfaction just knowing they had a part in it. I certainly feel this satisfaction.

LITERATURE CITED

Blaisdell, J. A. 1971. Progress report on selected National Park Service bighorn projects. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 15:90-93.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT WITH ME ARIZOW GAME iYD FISH DEPARRENT

Daniel P. Schadle Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona

Abstract: During 1968 the Arizona Bighorn Sheep Society requested permission to aid the Arizona Game and Fish Department with habitat improvement projects for the benefit of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis).

This cooperative effort is in its third year of successful operation and the future looks bright for the continuation of these projects for years to come.

INTRODUCTION

The word "effort" is boldly underlined in the topic of this paper. There is no other word that more accurately describes the present cooperative work projects between the Arizona Game and Fish Department and The Bighorn Sheep Society. Effort is the exertion of power, both physical and mental, and, needless to say, such exertion oftentimes includes both pain and trouble. Effort, then, adds up to the active use of energy in producing a desired result. In simplest terms, this is what the bighorn sheep work projects are all about--we are producing the desired results.

History

It all began during an Arizona Game and Fish Commission meeting in the fall of 1968. Messrs. Bowdoin, Jack and Jim Pierce of the Bighorn Sheep Society, addressed the Game and Fish Commissioners and requested that Society personnel be allowed to participate with the ~epartment'sefforts to improve the bighorn habitat within Arizona. Up to this time, the Department had not stressed the improvement of habitat for bighorn although we had developed some potholes, springs, seep and retention dam water developments that were being used by both bighorn and other species of wildlife. Basically, the Department had found it necessary to expend funds on operations that would produce the greatest revenue for the Department--sort of a "pay your own

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS way" policy. The eighty or so bighorn hunting permits sold each year would hardly justify a very large expenditure exclusively for bighorn habitat improvement. Our fisheries and large game programs continued to receive the lion's share of our annual budget fsr habitag improvement.

Coo~erativeProcedure

As some of you may know, it was during this fall Commission meeting that I spoke out rather strongly against any type of cooperative venture with any sportsmen organization. There was a definite reason for this negative approach to this proposal. I had previously been involved with many volunteer groups including the military engineers, boy scouts, and sportsmen groups in Arizona, Utah and New York. The end results of all these cooperative ventures was a large amount of work for the agency involved and a continual decline of enthusiasm by these groups until they became nonexistent. After several dormant years, other groups would renew their efforts only to have these programs falter and die again. I believe my skepticism was justified; however, we embarked on this joint effort hopefully. We know now that this joint effort to develop and improve bighorn habitat is very definitely working with outstanding success. A great amount of credit must go to the splendid leadership of the Bighorn Sheep Society and their ability to maintafn the enthusiasm among their membership. I realized that we were working with an unusual group of dedicated men and the ~epartment'sefforts were strengthened since we wanted this particular venture to succeed. Like many volunteer organizations such as this, the success of the organization seems to depend entirely on the strength of the leadership. When leadership fails, the organization usually folds.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department was aware of the need for water developments and for the elimination of death traps within bighorn habitat. We realized that the popularity of the bighorn hunt was quickly becoming of nationwide importance and that competition for the few available permits would be ever increasing. This was indeed an optimum time for this operation to get off the ground.

Since the first project in January 1969 in the Palomas Mountains the Society has undertaken eleven entirely new projects and have reworked or performed needed maintenance to seven other previously developed projects. During the fiscal year 1968-69, four projects were undertaken and completed: In Yuma County a stock exclusion fence was constructed around the Palomas Mountain catchment to exclude cattle and burros; the Dripping Springs pipeline was repaired and realigned; the Aguila Mountain pothole and catchment were maintained; in Mohave County Wilson Ridge Spring was developed. During 1969-70, four projects were undertaken and completed. In Yuma County the Middle Mountain catchment was rebuilt by replacing the 3000 gallon reservoir and removing and replacing the 2000 square foot galvanized apron; Lazarus tank in the Plomosa Mountains was developed; a 17,000 gallon capacity galvanized and vinyl liner reservoir was installed in the Little Horn Moun- tains; in Pima County the Ragged Top Mountains pothole was developed.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS During 1970-71, four projects were undertaken and completed. In Yuma County the Chocolate Mountain catchment was maintained. A 3000 gallon tank was removed and replaced by a 10,000 gallon galvanized and vinyl liner reservoir; Recluse tank was corrst-riicted d'in the Yiim Proving Grounds; Lazarus ti;& was reworked; Holt tank and Thanksgiving tank were developed. Furing the present 1971-72 year Ragged Top pothole was reworked; Lazarus tank was redone again after being partially destroyed by flood waters, and the largest Society group ever to assemble on any of these work projects (19 men) constructed one large dam in the Sand Tank Mountains and made water sealing repairs to another existing dam. Black Bottom tank was also developed in the Sand Tank Mountains. Box Canyon tank in the Gila Bend Mountains was developed by constructing one silt deflecting wall, a silt retaining wall and a water holding dam. Two additional water holding dams will be completed next year. A spring will be developed later this month in Mohave County. ltls really quite simple for me to summarize the activities of these three years on one sheet of paper, but there is much more to the actual completion of such projects than indicated here. What is actually necessary to get one of these projects off the ground? First, the need for the project must be established and recommended, usually by a member of the Arizona Game and Fish Department or an interested sportsman. Quite often this is done by a member of the Bighorn Sheep Society. Next, the site is visited on the ground and the feasibility and the biological evaluation of the site is made by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife for approval and for financial assistance. After approval, the development site location, which is usually on government lands, must be covered by some written use permit in order to enter the lands, to construct the project and to provide proper maintenance thereafter. With this approval, the project can be scheduled with the Bighorn Sheep Society. We then will figure the type and amount of materials and equipment needed to get the job done and can subsequently coordinate our efforts to get the materials and equipment to the job site. This is usually where animal power and man power become one massive effort to pack the material to the job site. The individual planning done by each member of the Society going out on one of these projects is not known, but I know when I am fortunate enough to be among those going there is considerable planning, preparation and a certain amount of eager anticipation. So, you see, such a field operation is a carefully planned procedure with reliable and responsible individuals working for the end product. However, our cooperative effort has not escaped the wrath of those not sympathetic to our cause or those uninformed individuals who completely misunderstand the intent of these projects. Some thought the Bighorn Sheep Society members were traveling across the State doing what they wanted to do without direction or guidance. Some thought we were establishing bighorn waters that would eventually draw sheep away from thekr natural habitat. Still others thought our efforts were not justified since we could not assure water permanency at each site, even though we enlarged the capacities and worked only on established bighorn watering holes. We attempted to inform such skeptics of our aims and goals and we hope they got the point. Our work continues to have the support and backing of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Department and all knowledgeable sportsmen interested in the preservation of the bighorn.

What makes these projects so meaningful? Perlzaps we can determine this by answering a few questions:

1. How many individuals, who have worked all day, will travel hundreds of miles at their own expense to prepare for an arduous work program the following day with little or no sleep?

2. How many family men will sacrifice weekend after weekend away from home to perform back-breaking labor without pay?

3. How many individuals would continue to work for the restoration and preservation of an animal they can no longer hunt, since most of these men have previously taken their bighorn?

What do these individuals expect for their dedication and generous contribution toward the bighorn? No more, no less than the knowledge that they have had a part in the preservation of this wonderful animal.

This year, we have experienced a very definite increase in numbers of individuals participating in these work projects, but what is more encouraging than the numbers involved is the turnout of younger individuals who have become interested in these projects. This is very definitely a healthy sign and if it continues will lead to a very active program for many years to come.

Again, we wish to commend the Bighorn Sheep Society for their splendid efforts and cooperation and to express our thanks for a job well done.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS DEMELORE4T OF PEMENT W I DL1R WATER SUPPLIES JOSHW TREE NATIONAL PKINUENT

Peter L. Parry, Superintendent Joshua Tree National Monument Box 875 Twentynine Palms, California

Abstract. Artificial waterholes have been developed on Joshua Tree National Monument using designs developed and tested in Arizona, Nevada and elsewhere in California. One spring was rehabilitated at considerable expense. Storage of 5,000 to 10,000 gallons of water is anticipated in some areas to provide sufficient water for wildlife.

Joshua Tree National Monument is an 870 square-mile unit of the National Park Service located in Southern California, approximately 120 miles east of Los Angeles, and 80 miles north of the Mexican border. Relatively undisturbed Colorado Desert and Mohave Desert habitats are included within the Monument. Elevations range from about 1000 feet to 5800 feet. The topography is charac- terized by rugged mountain ranges and broad valleys.

Approximately 60% of the Monument's acreage is currently being proposed for inclusion within the wilderness system, thus insuring the limitation of public use developments on the majority of Monument lands.

Climate is rather typical for Southern California desert areas. Rainfall averages near 6 inches per year in the western end of the Monument and 2 to 3 inches in the eastern end. Most of this precipitation falls during July, August and September in the form of thunderstorms. Shade temperatures range from over 110-F down to 0-F or below.

Long term weather observations and measurement of water tables at various locations in the Monument apparently indicate that the area is experiencing a drouth, at least over the last 10 to 15 years. This is further evidenced by many of the area's springs which historically have flowed, but are now drying, or have dried.

Populations of large mammals are currently limited to a few deer at higher elevations in the western end of the Monument, and bighorn sheep, coyotes and

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS a few mountain lions that range throughout the Monument. There are at present no feral burros, although there have been a few reported sightings in mountain ranges to the east.

Due to the drying up of water holes and springs in the Monument, it has become evident that if the bighorn sheep and other wildlife populations are to be maintained, that some means of augmenting dwindling water supplies must be developed. The alternatives available at Joshua Tree National Monument were:

1. The rehabilitation of springs that have flowed in the past, but are now failing.

2. Transporting of water to locations where water was available to wildlife in the past, but is not now available.

3. Installation of rain catchment devices, storage tanks and guzzlers.

A combination of all of these alternatives is being used in the development of water sources at Joshua Tree National Monument. Since the Monument is a unit of the National Park Service, it is governed by policies that restrict, or discourage the disturbance of the environment. For this reason, our priorities for developing water sources favor those which will have the least disturbing impact upon the area.

Spring Rehabilitation

On the basis of U. S. Geological Survey reports on the probabilities of obtain- ing water at a number of now dry springs, investigations during late 1971 were made and specific recommendations were given on a number of springs by Mr. Robert Cowell, a recently retired California Department of Fish and Game employee with 20 years experience in the development of desert water sources.

Based on Mr. Cowell's reports and recommendations by National Park Service Research Biologist Charles Hansen, the "Lost Palms (NPS) Oasis" spring was rehabilitated during 1971 by Mr. Cowell. Work consisted of digging a 9 foot by 3 foot by 6 foot deep walk-in drinker with rock walls. Also installed was 75 feet of pipe line from the walk-in drinker to a small concrete drinker, 8 inches by 18 inches by 6 inches deep, with float valve.

Further spring rehabilitation work may consist of horizontal well drillings in a few sites recommended by both the Geological Survey and Biologist Hansen. Since this type of development is relatively expensive, no other springs have yet been developed by this method in the Monument.

Transporting of Water to Former Watering Holes Now Dry

This practice has generally been ruled out in Joshua Tree National Monument because of excessive recurring costs and the proposed establishment of more

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS than half the Monument as Wilderness. The one exception to this policy is the development in Stubbe Springs area. This spring, now dry, has been one of the most important and most used water sources in the area for bighorn sheep. In June of 196s a 16 foot by 32 foot metal rain catchment apron; a 3000 gallon metal underground storage tank; and a float valve drinking device, were installed near the site of the dry spring. After two years of use, it became increasingly apparent that the catchment apron was too small for the amount of wildlife use, and an additional 8 foot by 32 foot metal section was added to the apron in May 1970. Increasing wildlife use (currently estimated at 13-15 gallons per day during dry periods) and the lack of normal rainfall proved the water supply still inadequate, so water was hauled over an old jeep road by tracter and 55 gallon drums. The hauling of water to the site was stopped during late 1971 when a mile-and-one-half pipline was installed from the end of an improved road to the spring site. The storage tanks are now checked bi- weekly and filled when necessary by a large water tanker truck.

The cost of installing the rain catchment system in 1968 was $3000, and the cost of constructing the pipeline was $3100.

Installation of Catchment, Storage, and Guzzler Devices

Three different types of devices have been proposed for use in the Monument:

1. Metal aprons, underground storage tanks, and guzzlers similar to those previously installed in Joshua Tree National Monument.

2. Butyl rubber aprons, semi-buried storage tanks and guzzlers.

3. Adics, or horizontal mine tunnels, constructed in the bottoms of washes or ravines.

The location of the existing and future devices throughout the Monument is based on research and recommendations by an experienced team consisting of Richard Weaver of the California Department of Fish and Game, and National Park Service Biologists Kenneth Baker, James Blaisdell and Charles Hansen.

Three metal apron devices have been installed in the Monument. In addition to the previously described unit at Stubbe Springs, 32 foot by 32 foot catchment devices with 2100 gallon storage tanks were installed during the summer of

1970 in the extreme western portion, and the central portion of the Monument. ' The 1024 square feet of apron has proven adequate for the westernmost location and water has been available permanently since installation. Rainfall here averages near 6 inches per year, probably the wettest area within the Monument. Wildlife use of the water is relatively light.

The device in the central portion of the Monument has been plagued by a mechanical break down in the guzzler and a pipeline failure, so we are unable to evaluate its operation. Present wildlife use of the water is light.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS No major maintenance work has been necessary since installation of the three devices. Minor cleanouts of troughs on the aprons are performed during each visit by a Monument employee. We expect no major maintenance for at least another 1 to 3 years.

Total costs for the construction and installation of the devices were $3000 each, or about $3 per square foot of catchment.

Because of the probability of high maintenance costs in the future on metal aprons and the relatively high construction costs per square foot of catchment, investigations are under way on finding substitute materials for the metal aprons and tanks. At present, butyl rubber seems the most promising. It is our understanding that devices of this type installed by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management, have been reasonably successful. Current plans are to construct an experimental 5600 square foot rubber apron with 5000 to 10,000 gallon storage tanks in the southeastern part of the Monument in an area of 2 to 3 inches of average annual precipitation.

The device will be similar to that described in U. S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin Number 307, Rain Traps for Intercepting and Storing Water for Live- stock.

Estimated construction cost for this installation is $1.00 to $1.50 per square foot of catchment.

The third type of rain catchment device being considered is the adit or tunnel. This installation consists of a drilled and blasted underground storage ta& located in the walls of a steep, rocky wash or ravine. The tunnel is constructed in, or near, the bottom of the wash and is located so that cloudburst precipitation will enter the tunnel and silt and other debris will continue on down the wash. Site selection and design are critical with this type of device. The rock walls of the wash must be solid with a minimum of cracks and faults, the tunnel mouth must face north to minimize evaporation, and the watershed above should be "clean", or relatively free of silting material. Mr. Duncan of the Kofa-Cabeza Prieta Game Range in Yuma, Arizona, provided valuable assistance and advice concerning location and design.

Such a site was located in the extreme eastern end of the Monument and late in 1971 a horizontal tunnel designed to hold 14,000 gallons of water was constructed. No rain has fallen since the completion of the project, so no evaluation can presently be made. Cost of constructing the adit was approximately $7000.

Considering all the alternatives for supplying water listed above, our order of choice is as follows:

1. Development of springs that are now drying up, provided there is some evidence that the work performed would

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS lead to a year-round water source for at least the next 5 to 10 years.

2. Construction of adits because of little, or no maintenance costs if properly designed.

3. Installation of butyl rubber rain catchments because of lower installation costs per square foot of apron and possible lower maintenance costs than steel or aluminum devices.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS CAPTURE OF FREE- FlUGI NG 9ESERT SHEEP I rl SOl4ORI, CO

Gerald H. Gates Assistant Federal Aid Coordinator New Mexico Department of Game and Fish State Capitol Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

Abstract: Five Mexican desert bighorn (Ovis canadensis mexicana) were captured in the Loma Prieta range in Sonora, Mexico. They were captured using Azaperone (R1929) in combination with etropine. Injecting Azaperone at 20 mg level had the desired conditioning effect. No undesirable side effects were noted such as salvation, bloat vomiting and teeth grinding. The bighorn were transported to camp in a helicopter in crates. The administration of one-quarter reversal dosage enabled bighorn to stand and be walked to transportation. Oxygen theraphy acted to quiet the animal. Darkened holding facilities allowed bighorn to be held and transported without excitement.

Objective

To capture five female desert sheep in Sonora, Mexico, and release them into a paddock at Red Rock, New Mexico, for propagation.

Background

An agreement was entered into between the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the Federal Mexican Government for an exchange of pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) for desert bighorn sheep. The exchange rate was ten antelope for one desert sheep with capture and delivery the responsibility of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

The acquisition of desert sheep for propagation to restock historic range is the prime objective of this trade. Historically the Mexican bighorn sheep subspecies now in Sonora occupied the Big Hatchet, San Andres, Guadalupe and possibly other ranges in southern New Mexico and therefore has the desirable evolutionary linage for restocking these areas.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS As the initial step of this transaction, 50 antelope were trapped and released in an exclosure 1-10 miles northwest of San Luis Potosi on January 15, 1972. On January 20, 1972, the sheep-capture crew departed Santa Fe, New Mexico in route to Lorna Prieta to attempt to take five desert bighorn ewes by use of immobilizing drugs.

We selected Loma Prieta (100 miles southwest of Caborca, state of Sonora as the capture site for three reasons: (1). sheep in this locale and southwestern New Mexico are of common ancestry; (2) the terrain lends itself ideally to sheep capture from rotary-wing aircraft; and (3) scouting by Roberto Garcia indicated a concentration of female sheep in this area.

Descri~tionof Capture Area

Loma Prieta is a narrow mountain range rising from sea level and extending 20 to 30 miles in a north-south direction. The northern area, the highest, roughest portion of the chain, protruded precipitously from the sea to rugged peaks at the crest, with interspersions of flat, sandy arroyos and low saddles between drainages. Cacti and loose rock are distinctive features of this sheep habitat, with an occasional zerophytic shrub to break the monotony. A beautiful slender green tree resembling a conifer, is found occasionally along the upper ridge tops. An escarpment along the eastern the highest ridge. The the Sonoran desert of gigantic saguaro, organ p in sandy wastelands that sweep toward distant hills.

Lorna Prieta Sheep and Their Reaction to Harassment

Judging from the number of tracks, pellets and trails we saw, sheep were numerous in the Loma Prieta range at the time of our operations. Trails interconnected throughout the area but generally followed the east slopes just under the ridge crests and met in the saddles. Trail location apparently responded to wild conditions; the eastern slopes were probably the lee slopes in this area near the Gulf of California. Tracks and pellets were also quite common in sandy arroyos and along low beaches, indicating extensive sheep use of the entire area. Trails, however, tended to become more definite on approaches to craggy areas which presumably were heavily used as resting and escape areas.

All sheep when first observed were either along the range crest or were moving rapidly into lower rugged terrain. Their movements exhibited tremendous stamina and agility. In fact, even though the five sheep captured ran at high speed through difficult terrain from two to four miles we found only one small bruise on one sheep's muzzle.

During the initial flight from the helicopter, all sheep moved rapidly into lower terrain and tended to climb steep hillsides. Usually after dashing from one-half to one mile, the sheep attempted to hide themselves under shrubs in drainages along hillsides. We could flush a single sheep or group

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS of sheep from concealment by hovering closely for a few seconds. Their next run tended to follow more gentle terrain and skirted briefly or avoided steep areas. We drugged the first three sheep when they tried to "brush-up" after extended sprints. The fourth and fifth were drugged on open hillsides. Number four was walking slowly across an open hillside. Number five nervously stopped in the open to urinate, a reaction very typical of domestic sheep ewes when harassed.

Drug Administration

Trail drug dosages for desert sheep ewes were determined from personal communication with G. I. Day and R. Smith of the Arizona Department of Game and Fish. They reported good success from the use of a combination of M-99 and Holoanisone on yearling female desert sheep. Janssen Pharmaceutica advised that their product Azaperone (R 1929) was superior to Holoanisone on many species and a sample was obtained for clinical trials. During our five captures, immobilization was accomplished without the complications reported by Logsdon 1969, who used M-99 without tranquilizer additive.

Table 1. Capture and Reaction of Female Desert Sheep Through Combined Use of M-99 and Azaperone

Dosage (mg) Antidote 1/ Est. Induction mg Reversal Animal Age Wt. mg/lb* Total Min Dosage TimeMin. Comments

1 4 145 .0137 2.0 7 4.0 14 recovered nicely 2 2 90 .0222 2.0 - - - Flank site; no reaction 2 4 " 0222 2.0 3 4.0 12 antidote in two doses 3 1 75 ,0266 2.0 8 4.0 8 antidote in two doses 4 4 115 .0173 2.2 7 4.0 15 antidote in two doses 5 4 115 .0173 2.2 6 3.6 3 antidote in two doses

After we immobilized the first three ewes, we adjusted the etropine dosage to prevent excessive travel after the onset of ataxia. The first three sheep received 2.0 mg of M-99 and 20 mg of Azaperone. Although immobilization was adequate for capture in each instance, the sheep moved farther than was desirable. An increase of 0.2 mg M-99 appeared to give improved

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS performance in that the two sheep receiving 2.2 mg moved considerably shorter distance than did the previous animals. The shorter the distance that a sheep moved after injection the less likely it was to get into rough terrain from which it must be arduously moved to a site from which the helicopter could airlift it. Landing sites were rather scarce throughout the area.

Reaction to Drugs

All captured sheep showed a common reaction during immobilization. First response was ataxia of the front legs. After ataxia became pronounced the sheep leaned against shrubs for support. Complete loss of locomotion followed, although the rear legs never completely relaxed, but maintained a constant forward thrust.

The head was elevated so its axis paralleled that of the body. With the muzzle thus lifted, the sheep swung the head nervously to either side through approximately 5 degree of arc. The bright, wide-open eyes gave the sheep a frightened look which persisted even though the sheep nuzzled the handler and attempted to grasp an article of clothing or his hand. After taking an item in its jaw, the sheep swung its muzzle upward in a browsing motion. Portions of plants were bitten off while the sheep were immobilized but never eaten. After reversal and furing recovery, at least four of the

Nystagmus and pupil dilation were observed in all animals. The former symptom was most pronounced immediately following immobilization. Slight salivation occurred usually from 1 to 1-112 hours after capture. Usually, the only symptom was slight muzzle wetness, but one sheep did drool somewhat.

All immobilized sheep held their tails in a tight inverted curl over the back. They might relax the tail slightly when they had lain quietly for a few minutes, but any excitement would cause them to again tighten the tail cur 1.

Lacrimal glands were affected, but to a lesser degree than other responses. These glands were opened slightly, but my observation indicated a skin tightening in the facial region rather than a response of the gland itself, due perhaps to the strained position of the head.

The pulse rate in all immobilized sheep was regular but somewhat weak. Palpitations were from 135 to 142 per minute. Since these sheep were all taken after tremendous exertion, the high pulse rate could have been due to exercise rather than to drug stimulation.

Most sheep exhibited occasional discomfort or difficulty in breathing. These symptoms could be overcome by administering oxygen when the animal became excited. A one-fourth reversal dosage was given after immobilization to aid in discomfort relief and assist in moving the sheep to a pick-up spot. Through antidote and oxygen therapeutics the heart rate could be reduced

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS after 15 minutes to below 130 per minute at which point all distress symptoms ceased. The animal could then be moved by walking it to any location for crating and pick-up by the helicopter. Four sheep were given one-fourth reversal dosages in the field and then walked calmly and easily up to one-half mile over rough terrain.

Janssen Pharmaceutica compound Azaperone (R 1929) was used in combination with etropine and proved an excellent tranquilizer for desert sheep. Injec- tion of Azaperone at 20 mg level had the desired conditioning effect for which it was used. There was none of the salivation reported by Logsdon and nystagmus was very slight. We experienced none of the other undesirable side effects that may occur with M-99 immobilization, such as bloat, vomiting and teeth grinding.

Recovery

Sheep were picked up in crates slung from the helicopter and delivered to camp. There a thorough check was made for external parasites, lesions and abnormalities, and the dart puncture was medicated. Each sheep was then submerged in a dipping vat until completely wet. Each sheep was given 1 cc of terramycin intramuscularly and 1 cc of combiotic intradermally, then placed in an individual holding pen. M 50-50 was injected in the rump and recovery monitored. After recovery sheep were placed in a common holding facility that was completely covered.

Within 8 to 15 minutes each sheep had regained its feet although most were very unsteady. Within 15 to 25 minutes they were acting quite normal and showing agressive actions. Sheep number five received more oxygen during preliminary treatment than the others and arrived in camp standing in its crate. This sheep was never thereafter unable to stand.

Judging from the total reactions of all sheep taken, three handling techniques were outstandingly effective: (1) Administration of one-quarter reversal dosage enabled the sheep to stand and be walked to any desired location for transportation; (2) oxygen therapy acted to quiet the animal by relieving distress symptoms and reduce the heart rate below 130 beats per minute where distress symptoms disappeared; (3) darkened holding facility allowed sheep to be held and transported without excitement.

LITERATURE CITED

Logsdon, H. S. 1969. Use of Drugs As A Capture Technique for Desert Bighorn Sheep. Colorado State University. pp 173

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS FRATERN ITY OF THE DESERT B I GHORi-iiEV4DA

Carl Ciliax, President Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn Las Vegas, Nevada

Presented by Roger D. Johnson U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Las Vegas, Nevada

Abstract. Bighorn was established in April 1964 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The stated purpose is to serve as a public stimulus and assistant to agencies involved in protection, management and utilization of desert bighorn sheep, particularly in Nevada. The purpose and objectives are being met by action programs and cooperation with State and Federal agencies. About 30 states are represented on the membership rolls and include professionals in the field of bighorn management as well as sportsmen and conservationists.

In early 1964 a committee within the Las Vegas Sportsmen's Club was formed to determine what could be done to improve the status of the desert bighorn sheep in Nevada. Meeting in the home of one of the members this nucleus of seven people decided that the goals of the committee could best be met by forming a separate organization. In April 1964 the group took form and called itself the Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn.

The stated purpose of this organization is to serve as a public stimulus and assistant to agencies involved in the protection, management and utilization of desert bighorn sheep, particularly in Nevada.

The first objective of the Fraternity was to urge changes in the hunting regulations to provide greater protec-tion for young bighorn rams and to require the taking of only trophy-sized, over-aged animals. The Nevada Fish and Game Commission adopted into law the Trophy Ram Regulation in June 1965. Coupled with this regulation was the requirement that all bighorn sheep tagholders must attend a hunter indoctrination course to prepare them to properly identify and age legal bighorn rams.

A booklet titled "~esertBighorn Sheep Hunting In Nevada" by Charles G. Hansen was published by the Fraternity as an informative aid to hunters. It was

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS originally given to all applicants for sheep tags. Its current distribution is limited to actual tag holders.

The results of this effort were gratifying. Seventeen iegal sheep were taken during the 1965 season, and of these fifteen qualified for mention in Boone & C rockett records.

The success of this effort attracted approximately 250 new members to the Fraternity. Monthly meetings during the early life of the group drew an average of 65 attendees with a maximum gathering of 120.

One of the early issues that concerned Fraternity members was the proposed introduction of an exotic species (Barbary sheep) into Nevada. The membership urged the State Fish and Game Commission to abandon this project and instead place more emphasis on the management and enhancement of the already present desert bighorn. It was proposed by the Fraternity that a long thought about but not implemented transplant program be initiated to reintroduce the bighorn into suitable areas of its former range. A Fraternity fund raising campaign yielded about $1400, which together with donations from other organizations and matching monies from government sources was used to construct an enclosure near Hawthorne, Nevada. Approximately 600 acres of land was made available by the Hawthorne Naval Depot for the transplant site. The enclosure was completed in April 1968 and dedicated in June of the same year.

The first actual transplant to Hawthorne in June 1968 met with some hardship, but a renewed effort by the Nevada Department of Fish and Game in 1969 bore fruit. In July 1970 twenty bighorns were present in the enclosure, and the project to this point was considered a success.

The Fraternity has contributed to the welfare of the bighorn in several other areas. Since 1965 members have assisted management agencies in conducting lamb counts in bighorn ranges of southern Nevada. They provided active support to the Nevada Department of Fish and Game in its proposed helicopter survey program. The use of the helicopter has become a standard inventory tool of the Department. In 1968 the Fraternity sent questionnaires to all tag holders to gather information that might contribute to improvement of future hunts. This data was provided to the State. An annual award is presented by the Fraternity to the hunter taking the largest ram in Nevada.

In December 1968 the Fraternity entered into a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Land Management to assist in the maintenance of water developments important to the desert bighorn. The agreement included the upkeep of five springs plus those developed subsequently. A cooperative project with the Bureau of Land Management in the Highland Range produced a dam eight feet high with a 12,000 gallon capacity. The Fraternity provided the manpower for construction of the Corkscrew Canyon Guzzler, additional water storage in the Pintwater Range and rehabilitation of Deadman Spring on the Desert National Wildlife Range. Some of the more inventive members solicited a 1500 gallon storage tank for use at Joe May Guzzler on the Wildlife Range.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Some of the ~raternity'srecent activities Include: Hosting a barbeque and social gathering for members of the Youth Conservation Corps at Desert National Wildlife Range (note - only service organization in Las Vegas that contributed). Active support of the Cabeza Prieta and Desert Wilderness Proposals. Purchased two time lapse cameras for waterhole counts in Southern Nevada.

The Fraternity has demonstrated its concern for the worsening condition of the bighorn's environment. Excessive human intrusion into critical habitat areas, particularly by off road vehicles, is felt to be incompatible with the prima- tive needs of this animal, The concern of the Fraternity membership has further broadened to include the future welfare of all wildlife and conditions affecting our total environment.

As to the future, the Fraternity intends to become more involved in the legislative arena of all levels of government. The burro bill is among its priorities. The Fraternity will continue to meet its commitments to resource agencies. The group is expanding its participation in water and facilities development and construction.

And last but not least the Fraternity seeks to expand its membership. About 30 states are represented on the rolls. Sportsmen and conservationists who are concerned about the future of the desert bighorn can have a voice in guiding management of this animal by belonging to the Fraternity.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS STATE OF DESERT BIGtlORN SHEEP IN ARIZONA

Paul M. Webb Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona

Abstract. Bighorn populations have been declining and human populations have been increasing. The interaction of the developers, recreationists and land users have taken their toll. The causes of most desert bighorn habitat losses can be placed under five broad catagories: Dam building and water projects; land development; highway and road construction; recreationist and recreational development; and livestock competition. Future projects seem about to carve. man's "progress" deeper and deeper into what is left of desert bighorn in Arizona.

Status is defined as standing or position as regards to condition. Welsh (1970) gave a very thorough status report on the Arizona desert bighorn sheep. Hnclud- ed were some of the problems facing sheep management as associated with "progressv1. Brown (1972) presented the bighorn picture on the Papago Indian Reservation. The primary purpose of this report is to elucidate somewhat on the cause and effect of v'commercial progress" on desert bighorn sheep in Arizona.

With regard to desert bighorn sheep survival, "progress" is analogous to chipping away at the habitat and animal. Removing a small part of the habitat doesn't hurt too much but when enough pieces have been removed the animal must disappear. This is exactly what is happening to some of our bighorn habitat. If the present plans for future "progress" are developed, we can look forward to portions of the habitat disappearing. An unbelievable number of state and federal agencies and private concerns are chipping away at the habitat. Planning or concern with the present or future needs of bighorn sheep or of any wildlife has been sadly lacking in some instances. Hopefully, this report will make everyone more aware of the problem.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of sheep as determined by Russo (1956) and the sightings of bighorn in journals of early Arizona travelers. Figure 1 also shows the present day distribution and those areas we can expect to be retired in the next decade. If you have any doubts, examine the distribution of historical accounts in comparison with the distribution in 1956 and then look at the present range.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS One may ask why this apparent decline happened and what caused it. A look at the last two decades may provide a clue. In 1950, the human population was 749,000, in 1960, 1,300,000 and presently it is hovering around 1,800,000 people. Predictions for t.he future include 2,380,000 in 1980. The interaction of developers, recreationists and land users have taken their toll of the habitat. ~et'slook at some of the "chips" that have been cut out of the sheep habitat. Some are what Aldo Leopold termed "ecological atrocities". Others are what present day environmentalists call "ecological disasters1'--a much milder term. It should be noted that a considerable amount of hindsight was used in writing the following and it should not be construed as destructive criticism. Hopefully, those agencies and private concerns iiwolved can learn from past history and project a changed attitude into the future. If not, all hope for perpetuating the species through habitat conservation is lost.

The causes of most desert bighorn sheep habitat losses can be placed under five broad categories:

Dam building and water projects Land developments Highway and road construction Recreationist and recreational developments Livestock competition

Dam Construction and Water Projects

Early in the history of Arizona, Roosevelt Dam was constructed to provide flood control and means to regulate irrigation water to farmlands in the Salt River Valley where Phoenix is now located. Subsequently, three more dams were constructed along the Salt River to provide more water storage and electricity. Roads were built, workers brought in and the whole area became available for public use. Even before the development of the lakes, the area was subjected to severe livestock overgrazing; the effects of which are readily apparent today. A herd of bighorn sheep existed along the Salt River and extended throughout much of the Superstition Mountains. Following the construction of the dams, the sheep population diminished. The last known bighorn sighting was in 1957. Just what all of the above had to do with the disappearance of the bighorn in the Superstition Mountains is now a matter of conjecture. But, it is obvious, the desert bighorn sheep habitat had too much taken from it, including the animal itself.

Dam construction throughout the state has made lakes of mostly quiet rivers that occasionally went on a rampage. The result was to provide access for people to previously inaccessible areas. Associated road building, in addition to providing more access, promotes recreational endeavors such as campgrounds, beaches, motor boating, fishing, etc.

Agencies involved include the Salt River Project with four dams on the Salt River and two on the Verde River, the Bureau of Reclamation with seven dams on the Colorado River and the Corps of Army Engineers with one dam (Painted Rock) on the Gila River and one dam (Alamo) on the Bill Williams River. The last

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS two dams were built primarily for flood control but used recreation as part of the justification for construction.

The result is that recreationists abound throughout Arizona year-round. Visits made to the Salt and Verde Rivers are primarily from Phoenix. Those to the Colorado River are mostly from California.

Land Development

Land development is commonly associated with river development, but not always. Land developers build graded roads and subdivide land right up to the base of mountains. Land is sold mostly on speculation. A prime example of the effects of land development on sheep habitat can be found at Lake Havasu City. The McCulloch Corporation has subdivided and brought people in. Associated with Lake Havasu City is a new road across Bill Williams River from Parker. Camp and picnic grounds were built by the State Parks Department in adjacent areas, which are very close to a good lambing ground. With the proposed expansion of this area and associated recreational developments, a good portion of the sheep habitat will be lost. This is only one example of habitat loss that is happening throughout the length of the Colorado River. Welsh (1964) reported to the besert Bighorn Council on the value of bighorn surveys by boat. Commercializa- tion along rivers cannot help but reduce these values.

Highway and Road Construction

State and county highway departments, mining enterprises, water development projects, microwave towers, power lines, petroleum and coal slurry pipelines all require roads. State and federal land use agencies who permit the building of highways and roads are also involved. Understandably, the laws that govern these land agencies do not leave them much choice but to grant permits.

Each road construction project destroys more desert bighorn habitat and, in many instances, prevents the sheep from roaming from ane mountain range to another. Several examples are outstanding. One is the Brenda Cutoff--this is a divided highway that will save a total of 12 miles in travel from Phoenix to the Colorado River. It will effectively isolate mountains to the north known to contain bighorn sheep from adjacent sheep habitat. Another is the highway from Parker to Lake Havasu City, which isolated the Aubrey Hills, a historic lambing area. Still another is the number of roads bulldozed in the Buckskin Mountains in the interest of bringing Colorado River water to Phoenix. This has provided a playground for all the off-road vehicle recreationists who visit the vicinity. Welsh (1971) mentioned that the straightening of the highway south from Boulder Dam resulted in more vehicle-bighorn collisions. Any road, no matter how bad, is an open invitation for those that have four-wheel drive or two-and-three-wheel off-road vehicles found on the market today. Some ask what harm these vehicles do. Maybe, just maybe, none but they are just one more chip out of the habitat.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Recreationists and Recreational Developments

In the past, state and public land use agencies appeared to be "hung up" on outdoor recreation and the development required for servicing these recreationists. To their credit, they have been attempting to contain people to specific areas. Witness the limit on numbers in our various National Parks and Forest Service campgrounds. The Forest Service has recommended a limit on the number of backpackers entering the Superstition Wilderness area. However, all public agencies have been, and are, overwhelmed by sheer numbers that demand outdoor recreation.

The Arizona State Parks Board now has picnic and camping grounds near areas known to contain sheep--the Sierra Estrella Mountains, the Buckeye Hills and the Aubrey Hills. Only portions of the total land they hold is now developed. Hopefully, the State Parks Board will consider bighorn sheep in future develop- mental plans.

Poaching was placed under recreation because it wouldn't fit anywhere else. Indications are that this may have quite an influence on limiting sheep populations in certain local areas. This represents one more chip out of the habitat. Welsh (1971) has gone into this in considerable detail.

Livestock Competition

This represents an age-old conflict with wildlife interests and could have a direct influence on sheep populations and in limiting same. We are experiencing a two-year drought--one of the worst recorded. Despite this, cattle are grazing or browsing in many portions of our desert ranges today. I wonder how many years of annual growth is being taken? The land use agencies responsible for the resources of these desert ranges are well aware of the problems involved, but are, in many or most instances, bound by the requirements set forth by the respective laws they operate under such as the Taylor Grazing Act and State Land Laws.

An example of what unrestrained grazing can do to desert bighorn sheep populations was experienced in 1965 in the Ragged Top and Silverbell Mountains (Brown, 1972a). An allotment including these mountains was set at approximately 600 head of cattle. After the cattle were placed on this area and when it became obvious that the range was being severely abused, the allotment was reappraised and numbers limited to 60. On round-up, approximately 800 head of cattle were found and literally scores of cows were found dead. As a sequel to this, in the next few years, eleven bighorn carcasses were found in the Ragged Tops and Silverbells. It was estimated that the sheep died at approximately the same time that the cattle died. Although no direct cause and effect could be found, the inference is there.

All the above has been somewhat negative. What of the positive side? Bighorn populations in good condition can still be found on the Kofa and Cabeza Game Ranges, the Organ Pipe National Monument, the Grand Canyon National Park, the

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS . Luke Air Force and Marine Gunnery Ranges and the Yuma Proving Ground. It makes one wonder if the lack of access and grazing has something to do with it, although grazing is permitt.ed on the Organ Pipe National Monument, mining activities and associated road systems still occur on the southern end ef the K~fa Mountains and the Yuma Proving Ground has numerous roads.

We also have an agreement with the Bureau of Land Management that precludes sheep grazing in an area where bighorn sheep occur. However, this does not apply to the Arizona Strip. Paradoxically, the Plomosa Mountains, site of the first bighorn hunt in Arizona, still contains a good population of desert bighorn sheep. The area is subjected to all the above abuses (although to a lesser degree) and is cut in two by a major divided highway. It appears that we should have more knowledge about each individual area and the factors that are influencing the habitat.

What of the Future?'

It now appears that in the next decade a new distribution line can be drawn showing reduced habitat. There are many facts that remain unknown about the interactions of man's activities and their affect on bighorn sheep. For instance, does an access road to a mountain top microwave tower actually drive desert bighorn from the habitat? This is not known, but should be investigated before towers are constructed on every peak in the state.

Projects proposed or on the drawing board right now include: The Central Arizona Project - This will effectively isolate ranges. Project roads will be constructed in the Buckskin Mountains providing access for more people.

The Sierra Estrella Mountain pumping station and power plant consists of pumping water to a reservoir on the north side of the mountain during low electricity demands and releasing water during peak demands. These mountains are the last bastion of bighorn within sight of Phoenix. Access, which will be needed to bring the job to completion, will open the way for off-road vehicles.

The Colorado River Parkway from Davis Dam to the Mexican Border is a scenic highway that will include all sheep ranges adjacent to the Colorado River.

A highway from Pierce Ferry across the Colorado River for access to the Arizona Strip will closely border sheep areas on the Arizona Strip.

These are but a few of many projects being considered. Each is a contribution to the economic development of the state. However, most projects are a detriment to the wildlife and range resource of Arizona.

Aldo Leopold in the 1930s said, "Conservation progress still consists largely of letterhead piety and convention oratory." 1'm afraid that's what 1'm guilty of right now. I have no solutions for the problems facing bighorn sheep habitat today. I can only hope that some understanding of our wildlife needs is taken into consideration with each proposed program.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS LITERATURE CITED

Brown, David E. 1972a. Personal communication.

1972b. The status of the bighorn sheep on the Papago Indian Reservation. Desert Bighorn Council 1972 Transactions.

Leopold, Aldo. 1966. Sand county almanac. Oxford Univ. Press, Inc. 295 pp.

Russo, John P. 1956. The desert bighorn sheep in Arizona. Wildl. Bull. No. 1. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 153 pp.

Welsh, George. 1964. Boat surveys as a technique in bighorn sheep classi- ification counts on Lake Mead and Mohave in northwestern Arizona. Desert Bighorn Council 1964 Transactions. pp. 37-42.

1970. Arizona desert bighorn sheep status report. Desert Bighorn Council 1970 Transactions. pp. 179-188.

1971. What's happening to our sheep? Wildl. Digest, Abstract 7. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 8 pp.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Figure 1. Past, present and future distribution of desert bighorn sheep in Arizona.

DESERT BIGI-IORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS FIWS IiWASIOTJ IYTO THE BIGHORI'S HABITAT

James 3. DeForge California State Folytechnic University, Pomona Pomona, California

Abstract: In a ten month study of one area in the South Fork of Lytle Creek he San Gabriel Mountains, it was determined that man's invasion into area and the effects thereof has caused a reduction in the num bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) utilizing this area.

INTRODUCTION

I have spent many hours observing the bighorn throughout the San Gabriel Mountains. In 1971, however I narrowed my study to the South Fork of the Lytle Creek drainage. Here in an area called Buck Point, I was able to witness what I believe to be the tremendous impact man has placed on the bighorn. I feel the presence of man is greatly influencing the sheep here and their survival in this area and others throu,ghout the San Gabriels is dependent on man and his ability to deal with the bighorn.

The South Fork drainage is key winter range for approximately 80 bighorn sheep. Buck Point is located at the very head of this Fork, and offers the most unique sheep habitat within this range. Although this drainage is mainly winter range, I believe the Buck Point area serves the sheep year around, Rams and ewes both can be found here, but the real key to Buck Point lies in the fact that it is also a lambing area. Within this drainage no other place is utilized by sheep the year around as they do the Buck foint area.

There are two approaches to this area: one is a hike approximately 3 112 miles up the Fork, the other is San Sevaine Road, a restricted dirt road for

DESZRT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Forest Service use only. San Sevaine Road runs up to and through the Buck Point area. Here is where I observed the bighorn and the effect this road and man's use of it had on sheep behavior.

OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION

My first encounters with the bighorn in the Buck Point area were made from a distance down the South Fork. During the months of February and March as high as eight ewes were observed in the area. My sightings indicate a stability in the number of sheep utilizing the area during this period.

In A~rilthings were somewhat different. Seldom were sheep sighted in the Buck Point area. When they were I was not seeing nearly the numbers as had been previously seen. At this time my interest and curiosity for the bighorn in this location began to grow.

In May I was able to obtain a key to the San Sevaine gate from the Forest Service for the study of the bighorn. I was now able to have better contact with the sheep here and I feel was able to obtain a truer picture of the area. Although the San Sevaine Road had been little used since the first of the year, it was now under somewhat of a change. Timber was being cut just a short way from Buck Point. Although traffic was not great, the noise from the men and their equipment was apparently being felt by the bighorn. The timber cutting lasted two months, April and May; however these were two very important months for the bighorn because the peak of the lambing season was at that time. I observed only two lambs in late May. At no time in the few months which followed them were more than these two lambs sighted in the Buck Point area. -41~0,the only ewes sighted in the area were the mothers of the lambs and an occasional third ewe. The lack of bighorn in the area was quite disturbing to me.

By June the timber cutting was completed and the workers were out of the area. June also brought the beginning of summer vacation which resulted in an influx of traffic into the area. Motorbikes had no trouble getting past the locked gates and consequently could often be seen and heard throughout the Buck Z'oint area. The weekend flow of this type of traffic was tremendous at times. More motorbike riders were sighted in one day than were sheep in one month!

The beginning of July brought the starting of the fire season and a definite restriction in the use of the area. Thus it was finally vacant of man. 1 was still able to enter the area, however, I did not observe any movement of sheep into the area until the end of August.

On August 28, three rams, four ewes, and two lambs were sighted in the Buck Peint area. On sight of me the sheep departed in the direction of the Cucamonga Peak area. This reaction was typical of the bighorn here ever since my close contact with them back in May. I had never had such a prolonged negative response to me in my work with the bighorn sheep than

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS I received at that time.

3n September 10, the two ewes that bore lambs were sighted at the very head of the South Fork. However, only one lamb was sighted with them. I never again sighted more than one lamb in the area. The following week I spent three days in the Buck Point area. As I entered the area I found the road covered with sheep beds, It was apparent that more sheep had returned and in a short time six ewes were sighted. During this time I felt may presence was finally accepted by the sheep since they now remained in the area.

The end of September brought the deer hunter into the area. Although Forest Service intended San Sevaine Road to remain closed the locks were continually broken. After a while the need to cut the locks was lessened for jeeps had found a way to work around the gate. During this time the area was crawling with hunters and the echo of gunfire was vividly heard. Once again the sheep moved out of the area. As a result, in November I sighted but only one young ram in all the Buck Point area.

CONCLUSION

The San Sevaine Road has been in existence for years, but today there is an increase in man's use of the road. The area has been abused at times especially during the deer hunting season. There has been no respect for the locked gates. I feel that the survival of the sheep here is the total removal of this road through the Buck Point area. The problem started when the road was first allowed to pass through the bighorn habitat. Since then (about seven years ago) a proposal was made to alter the road around the Buck Point area but as yet nothing has been done. I feel that the impact man's invasion has placed on the bighorn in this area was clearly shown. During the months of May to September, the sheep's behavior was negative toward man. This may be supported by their conditioned response to depart from the area on sight of me. At times during this study I felt that even my presence as an observer was a hinderance. However I strongly feel this response was a result of others and their use of the road. I had spent hours extending my friendship to the sheep but their fear for man was such that progress was not made until September.

In this 10 month period, I spent approximately 150 hours in the field and I feel my observations of the sheep's behavior showed that the increase in man's use of this road had resulted in a definite decrease in the sheep's utilization of the Buck Point area. My gravest concern lies in the fact that possibly other Buck Point areas of sheep habitat might be endangered. The bighorn is truly a wilderness animal and his survival is dependent on the preservation of his natural habitat. In a sense man is competing with the bighorn by altering its environment when such things as bike riding, timber cutting, and the use of roads through bighorn habitat are allowed.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS I feel we need more time in the field studying these animals; we must learn more of their characteristic behavior and habitat requirements. With this knowledge, we may be able to understand those special traits that favor their survival. Until this time the protection of wilderness is the only answer.

I don't mean to imply that man's invasion is detrimental to the bighorn at all times. There is the case of the leach field herd in the River Mountains of Lake Mead National Recreation Area. I understand the bighorn is able to tolerate man there. Hoever, we should realize that humans can be a disturbing factor. I ffel that it will take a concerted effort by man to keep the sheep utilizing the Buck Point area. It seems man can evade and prolong his efforts but can the bighorn sheep wait for man to decide the outcome here?

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS OBSERVATI ONS TAKE3 INRI NG THE BI RTH OF CANDY'S 1972 MI3

George M. Constantino Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Desert National Wildlife Range Las Vegas, Nevada

Abstract: On March 10, 1972, personnel of the Desert National Wildlife Range witnessed a captive desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) give birth to a lamb. After 20 minutes of labor the ewe dropped her lamb. Twenty minutes after birth the lamb was on his f

The following account of the birth of a captive desert bighorn lamb was taken from my field notes.

On March 10, 1972, my wife and I visited the ewe pen behind our house at Corn Creek Field Station, Desert National Wildlife Range. I noticed that Candy (captive ewe) was lying in a bed in the northwest corner of the pen away from the other ewes. Upon closer inspection I noticed that she was taking keep breaths and leaning with her chest and head forward while con- stricting her abdomen. A fist-sized protuberance was extending from her vulva.

By 1725 I was atop the observation tower with 7x35 binoculars and my wife was asking Joel Miller to come up and watch the birth with us. An object about two fists in size was now protruding from candy's vulva. She was taking breaths so deep through her nose that the sound could be heard by me watching 40 yards away. Her breaths came rapidly with constrictions of the abdomen coinciding with each breath.

At 1732 the lamb was almost all the way out, and he was already moving his head and ears. Cindy (another captive ewe) and her lamb approached Candy to within three feet, and they took a close look at the new lamb.

At 1735 the lamb was completely out. The ewe began licking him off. He was

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS wet with pieces of afterbirth membrane clinging to the side of his head. Candy began eating the membrane off the lamb as she licked him clean.

By 1749 the lamb had tried to get up several times, and he succeeded in moving onto his knees. Joel joined me, and he began watching with a 30x spotting scope. He related to me that the lamb still had a film over his eyes. The lamb then crawled alongside his mother and nuzzled against her. Candy kept cleaning off the lamb with her tongue, and by then his eyes were clear and his head was clean. During the last few minutes ~indy'slamb had jumped repeatedly onto Candy's and the new lamb's backs, but Candy did not seem to pay any attention to him. Candy's lamb made an attempt to stand up but failed. candy's lamb jumped up and stood on shaky ligs for 30 seconds at 1747. At this time Cindy began keeping her lamb and Blossom, a yearling ewe, away from Candy by charging at them when they came within three feet of Candy and her lamb.

At 1750 Candy got up and walked slowly away from her lamb. The lamb got up and wobbled very shakily towards Cindy, perhaps thinking that Cindy was his mother. Cindy pushed the lamb away with her nose. Candy still had approximately 12 inches of membrane hanging from her vulva.

Candy repeatedly tried to chew off the umbilical cord from her lamb, and by 1755 it had been reduced from six to four inches. The lamb had been drying out, and his fur was beginning to fluff out but he was still damp over most of his body.

At 1800 the lamb nursed for 10 seconds and Candy had most of his umbilical cord eaten off. The lamb looked in good shape, and he was only 1,2 inches smaller than ~indy'slamb, which had been born three days earlier.

By 1805 Candy's lamb could walk stiff legged, and he shuffled along behind his mother. He fed again. His sides and rump were still wet, but his head was almost completely dry.

By 1815 the lamb had fed several more times, but it was getting too dark to see much detail. Candy still had the membrane hanging from her vulva. We left then.

The.next morning we watched the lamb and his mother from 0630 to 0800. The lamb walked with greater strength and ease in his movements, but Candy still kept him pretty well hidden and away from people. Cindy and Frolic, a six year old ewe, surrounded Joel Miller when he tried to approach Candy and her new lamb and attempted to keep him back with butting threats. Candy was seen eating a large piece of membrane from the ground - probably her afterbirth.

Although the lamb was born in a fenced enclosure from a captive ewe births in the field may follow the same general pattern. This ability to give birth

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS. following only twenty minutes of labor gives the ewe bands a high degree of mobility. This mobility certainly gives desert bighorns an advantage for survival in the harsh environment that surrounds them.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS ATTEXiNKE ROSTER DESERT BI GHORH COUIC I L IvlEETI XJ

Name Agency Location

Anderson, Ronald D. Ariz. Game Nogales, Arizona & Fish Barret t, Jim Ariz. G. & F. Dayson, Arizona Blaisdell, Bonita S. ~at'lPark Klamath Falls, Oregon Service Blaisdell, Jim Nat'l Park Klamath Falls, Oregon Service Brigham, Rick Bur. Land Phoenix, Arizona Mgt . Sroman, Stan NPS Santa Fe, New Mexico Bro~m,David Ariz. G. & F. Phoenix, Arizona Bunch, Tom Utah State Logan, Utah Univ. Call, Mayo W. BLM Bountiful, Utah Carpenter, Lew Calif. Fresno, California Wildlife Fed. Carson, Robsrt D. Ariz. Des. Big. Scottsdale, Arizona Sheep Soc. Cooper, Jack R. Nev. Fish & Las Vegas, Nevada Game Cooper, Leonard Ariz. G. & F. Globe, Arizona Coss, Harold NP S Tucson, Arizona Crawford, John E. BLM Lakewood, Colorado creasy, Jim Bur. Sport Fish. Ajo, Arizona & Wildlife Crew, James V. Calif. Fish & Brawley, California Game Crew, Margaret Brawley, California Daughtry, Dave Ariz. G. & 3'. Phoenix, Arizona Davis, Jack B. Ariz. G. & I?. Payson, Arizona Day, Jerry Ariz. G. & F. Tucson, Arizona Dodson, Monte M. BSF & W Yuma, Arizona Duke, Bruce Ariz. G. & F. Casa Grande, Arizona Dunaway, Dave U.S. Forest Ser. Bishop, California Duncan, Jerry BSF & W Yuma, Arizona Ferris, Ross BLM Washington, DOC. Furlow, Bob BSF & W Yuma, Arizona Gaines, Ed Univ. Ariz. Tucson, Arizona Gates, Gerald New Mex, Santa Fe, New Mexico Game & Fish Graham, Iiatch USFS San Bernardino, California Guse, Neal NP S Grand Canyon, Arizona Hailey, Tommy Texas Parks & Marfa, Texas Wildlife Hailey, Connie Marfa, Texas Hall, Hazel Anchorage, Alaska

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Name Agency Location

Hall, Jack Anchorage, Alaska Hansen, Charles G. NP S Las Vegas, Nevada Hegge, James R. Ariz. G. & F. Phoenix, Arizona Hernandez, Feliz Ariz. Bighorn Ajo, Arizona Society Herworode, Bob Ariz. G. & F. Yuma, Arizona Hill, Jane BSF & W Rumpert, Idaho Hill, John D. BSF & W Rumpert, Idaho Horst, Roy Univ. Of Vt. Burlington, Vermont Zacobsen, Bob BLM Las Cruces, New Mexico Jacot, Francis H. NP S San Francisco, California Jett, Jim Ariz. G. & F. Kingman, Arizona Johnson, Roger 2. USF & W Las Vegas, Nevada Jones, Fred Lo Bur. of Out- Falls Church, Virginia door Recreation Jurs, Louis D. BLM Riverside, California Kelly, iiuth Placerville, California Kelly, Warren E. USFS Placerville, California Kiger, John H. BSF & W Las Cruces, New Mexico Kucora, Donald Mearns Wild- Tucson, Arizona life Society Mahon, Carl BLM Monticello, Utah Mahon, Veda Monticello, Utah McMichael, James Ariz. G. & F. Mesa, Arizona McLean, David J. NP S Boulder City, Nevada Metherell, Jake NP S Cedar City, Utah Monson, Gale Ariz.-Sonora Tucson, Arizona Desert Museum Monson, Gale Tucson, Arizona Mumrna, john W. USFS Albuquerque, New Mexico . Neal, Kelly S. Jr. Tucson, Arizona Nigh, Edward L. Jr. Ariz. Bighorn Tucson, Arizona Society ogBrien, Fat Ariz. G. & F, Willcox, Arizona Parry, Pete NP S Twenty-nine Palms, Calif. Powell, Lawrence E. BLM Phoenix, Arizona Ricker, Tom K. Ariz. G. & F. Avondale, Arizona Ross, John USFS Alamogordo, New Mexico Schadle, Dan Ariz. G. & F. Phoenix, Arizona Shannahan, Ed Ariz. Bighorn Scottsdale, Arizona Society Sheldon, M. G. BSF & W Phoenix, Arizona Smith, Donald Envir. Protect. Las Vegas, Nevada Agency Snider, Jackie Scottsdale, Arizona Spalding, T. W. Ariz. G. & F, Gila Bend, Arizona Spillett, J. Juan BSF & W Logan, Utah

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Name Agency Location

Stauffer, Marty Wild Dog Films Ft. Smith, Arkansas Stumpf, Alan NP S Bullhead City, Arizona Surnner, Lowell NPS, Ret. Glenwood, New Mexico Sumner, Marietta NPS, Ret. Glenwood, New Mexico Thoesen, Bob BSF & W Yuma, Arizona Tueller, Paul T. Univ. of Nev. , Reno, Nevada Reno Turner, Dee Univ. of Calif. Palm Desert, California Turner, Jack C. Univ. of Calif. Palm Desert, California Uhelher, Robert K. Santa Barbara, California Van Sickle, Harold Ariz. G. & F. Phoenix, Arizona Wallis, O.L, NPS San ~rancisco,California Watt, Larry Mesa, Arizona Weaver, Doris A. Desert Bighorn Loornis, California Council See.- Tres. Weaver. Richard A. Calif. F. & G. Loomis, California Weaver, Robert K. Ariz. G. & F. Phoenix, Arizona Webb, Paul Ariz. G. d F. Phoenix, Arizona Welch, George Ariz. G. & F. Kingman, Arizona Tfiitson, John USFS Pleasant Grove, Utah Wilson, Lanny BLM Santa Fe, New Mexico Wood, Marvon Calif. Wildlife Lemoore, California Fed. Yoakum, Jim BLM Reno, Nevada

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS DESERT ;3IGCIOMI QUIJCIL - 1971-72

OR I CERS :

Chairman: George W. Welch, Arizona Game and Fish, Kingman, Arizona Vice Chairman: Warren E. Kelly, U.S. Forest Service, Placerville, California Secretary-Treasurer: Doris A. Weaver, Loomis, California

TECHbl I CAL STAFF : H. Graham (Chr.), J. Blaisdell, W.G. Bradley, C. Hansen, J, Day, R. Horst, R. Weaver, J.S. Samano (Mexico), N. Simmons (Canada).

Executive: G. Welsh (Chr.), W. Kelly, D. Weaver, R. Weaver Constitution: G. Welsh (Chr.), Wo Kelly, D. Weaver Nominations : T. Hailey (Chr.), S. Broman, J. Yoakum Program: J. Jett (Chr.), B. Browning, J. Helvie, R* Hernbrode Arrangements : R. Horst (Chr.), J. Day, M. Larson, C. Hansen Transactions : J. Yoakum (Chr.), C. Hansen, We Graf, N. Simmons, R. Brechbill Awards : J. Kiger (Chr.), T. Hailey, J. Helvie, Do Dunaway, G. Duncan Burr3 : R. Brigham (Chr.) Publicity: L. Wilson (~hr.),B. Welch, J. Russo, £3. Browning, G. Tsukamoto, M. Call, T. Hailey Resolutions: M. Call (Chr.), J. Spillett, 3. Warburten

NIIIUAL !YEFT I iJGS

Year Location Chairman Secretary-Treasurer 1957 Las Vegas, Nevada M. Clair Aldous 1958 Yuma, Arizona Gale Monson & W. Kelly 1959 Death Valley, California M. Clair Aldous Fred Jones 1960 Las Cruces, New Mexico Warren Kelly Fred Jones 1961 Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico John Van den Akker Ralph Welles 1962 Grand Canyon, Arizona James Blaisdell Charles Hansen 1963 Las Vegas, Nevada A1 Ray Jonez Charles Hansen 1964 Mexicali, Baja Calif., Rudolfo Hernandez Corzo Charles Hansen Mexico 1965 Redlands, California John D. Goodman John P. Russo 1966 Silver City, New Mexico Cecil Kennedy John P. Russo 1967 Klngman, Arizona Claud Lard John T. Russo

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS Year Location Chairman Secretary-Treasurer 1968 Las Vegas, Nevada Ray Brechbill John P. Russo 1969 Monticello, Utah Ralph & Buddy Welles Wo Glen Bradley 1970 Bishop, California William Graf W. Glen Bradley 1971 Santa Fe, New Mexico Richard Weaver Tillie Barling 1972 Tucson, Arizona Warren Kelly Doris Weaver DESERT BI GH0RT.J COUNCIL AWARD RECI PIErdTS

Bighorn Trophy: 1960 Ralph and Florence Welles, U.S. National Fark Service, Death Valley, Calif. 1962 Oscar V. Deming, U.S. Bureau Sport Fisheries 6 Wildlife, Lakeview, Oregon 1965 John P. Russo, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona 1966 Charles Hansen, U.S. Bureau Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, Las Vegas, Nevada 1968 Steve James, Jr., Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn, Las Vegas, Nevada 1969 M. Clair Aldous, U.S. Bureau Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, Fallon, Nevada

Honor Plaque : 1968 Nevada Operations Office, Atomic Energy Commission, Las Vegas, Nevada 1969 Pat Hansen, Bighorn Illustrator Specialist, Death Valley, California 1972 Inyo National Forest, Bishop, California

DESERT ZTGHORN COUNCIL 1972 TRANSACTIONS . General Policy: Original papers in the field of the desert bighorn sheep and its habitat are published in the DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS. All papers presented at the Council's annual meetings are eligible for publication. Additional papers may be published when reviewed and approved by the Transactions Committee. Papers in excess of 10 pages a copy will be charged to the author at the current cost per page unless authorized by the Transactions Committee. Papers must be submitted to the Editor at the Council's annual meeting to be considered for the current edition.

Copy: Type manuscripts double space throughout with 1%-inch margins all around on good quality paper 8% x 11 inches. Number pages in upper right-hand corner. Proceed from a clear statement of purpose through procedures, results, and discussion. Sequence of contents: abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, literature cited, tables and figures. Type author's complete address on upper left-hand corner of first page. The author's name and his affiliation at the time the paper was performed follows the title. Present address, if different, should be indicated in a footnote on the first page.

Style: Guides to the rules for preparation of copy (capitalization, abbreviation, punctuation, tables, formulas, and literature cited) are the Style Manual for Biolo~ical Journals (prepared by the Committee on Form and Style of the Conference of Biological Editors). Consult the 1967 TRANSACTIONS for examples of prevailing style. The authority for spelling is ~ebster'sThird New International Dictionary, unabridged.

Title: The title should be concise, descriptive, and not more than 10 words in length. Avoid scientific names in titles if possible.

Footnotes: In general, avoid footnotes by incorporating such material in the text.

Acknowledgements: Include acknowledgements at the end of the introduction.

Scientific Names: Vernacular names of plants and animals are accompanied by appropriate, scientific names the first time each is mentioned (see Style Manual for Biological Journals).

Abstract: Instead of a summary, an abstract should accompany all articles. The abstract should be an informative digest of significant content. It should be able to stand alone

I as a brief statement of the conclusions of the paper.

References: When there are less than three references, insert them in parentheses where needed in the text by author, year, publication, volume, and pagination. Three or more references are grouped alphabe tically by authors ' last names under "Literature Cited". Use initials only for given names of authors, except for women's names, which will be spelled out. Cite books as follows: authors, date, title, publisher, place and paging. Paging must accompany direct quotes. To facilitate search of the literature it is highly desirable that paging be shown for paraphrased citations within the text. Show number of pages in theses. When necessary it is permissible to cite unpublished reports. Include source, paging, kind of reproduction (type-written, mimeographed, or multilithed), and place where filed.

Tables: Prepare.tables in keeping with the size of the TRANSACTIONS pages. A good table should be understandable without reference to the text. Long tables are rarely of general interest, short lists, with pertinent comments, are preferable.

Illustrations: Illustrations should be suitable for photographic reproduction without retouching or redrawing (see the TRANSACTIONS for examples). Illustrations exceeding 8% x 11 inches are not acceptable. Line drawings or graphs should be in India ink, on white drawing paper. Only essential photographs for half-tone illustrations will be acceptable because of the cost of reproduction. Submit prints of good contrast on glossy paper and properly label.

Proof: All papers will be reviewed for acceptable format by the Transactions Committee. Submit papers to the Editor, Bureau of Land Management, Post Office Box No. 1551, Reno, Nevada. Should papers be returned to authors for minor format corrections, please return corrected manuscript within 30 days.

Reprints: Minimum orders of reprints are available at printing costs providing the author submits his requests at the time of submission of manuscript.

Editorial Policy: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be reviewed by the Transactions Committee. The committee will primarily review all papers for format (in accordance with these instructions), and secondly will, when deemed necessary, provide advice only on contents.

* Approved by Council at 1966 Annual Meeting, amended April 6, 1967.