I Photo by Arizona Game and Fish Dept.

TWO TROPHY RAMS TAKEN DURING THE 1965 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP HUNT FROM THE KOFA GAME RANGE. ARIZONA. THE HEAD ON THE RIGHT SCORES 187 POINTS, MAKING IT THE NEW TOP RECORD DESERT BIG- HORN FORTHEUNlTEDSTATES,ACCORDlNGTOTHE BOONEANDCROCKETT RECORDBOOK. THE HEADTO THE LEFT SCORES 185-6/8 POINTS AND EXEMPLIFIES AN UNUSUALLY LARGE. WIDE FULL CURL. 1966 T ANSACTIO

A COMPILATION OF PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE l0thANNUAL MEETING, APRl L 6-7, 1966 AT SI LVER CITY, NEW MEXICO.

Q Edited by Jim Yoakum (Chairman), Charles Hansen, Norm Simmons, William Graf, and Ray Brechbi ll a Copies available by writing the Desert Bighorn Council 1500 N . Decatur Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada a Special Contributor: U. S. Public Health Service; Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory, Bioenvironmental Research Program, Las Vegas, Nevada DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL AWARD 1966 Dr. Charles G. Hansen

for his many publications and contributions to the management of the Desert Bighorn Sheep

The 1966 Desert Bighorn Council Awards Committee chose Dr. Charles G. Hansen as recipient of the Council Award. This award i s presented for outstanding con- tributions toward the welfare of the Desert Bighorn Sheep in the United States and Mexicc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

GOALS OF THE COUNCIL...... John P. Russo 1 WHERE HAVE WE BEEN AND WHERE ARE WE GOING ...... Ralph E. Welles 5 HOW WTDE IS THE SCOPE OF THE DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL ...... William Graf 9 PROBUMS OF RECREATIONAL USE OF GAME RANGES...... Marcus Nelson 13 THE PLACE OF REFUaS IN DESERT BIGHORN MANAGEMENT ...... Gale Monson 2 1

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONCEPT OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND THE PROBABLE EFFECTS OF DESERT BI~~~RNmmmm~m~~~m~mmm~m~.m.~....m.e.~m~~mm..m James A. Blaisdell 30 RECORDS OF THE SAN ANDRES REFUGE DEER HUNTS ...... Roger A. Smith 36 BIGHORN SHEEP MANAGEMENT ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS ...... John M. all 47 A PROPOSED DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP RANGE DEVELOPMENT PROZCT ...... Mayo W. Call 53 RESEARCH AND FUTURE REHABILITATION OF THE BIGHORN SHEEP IN SOUTHEASTERN UTAH...... Lanny 0. Wilson 56 STATUS OF TRANSPLANTED BIGHORNS IN TEXAS 1966 ...... Tommy L . Hailey 59

CENSUS AN6) COLLECTIONS OF EXOTIC UNGULATES GN THE HEARST RANCH ...... Warren E . Kelly 62 COMPARISON OF MULE DEER AND DESERT BIGHORN SEASONAL FOOD WITS...... Jim Yoakum 65

MULTIPLE USE COORDINATION ON THE SAN GORGON10 BIGHORN UNIT...... Hatch Graham 71 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DENTAL ANOMALES IN DESERT W. Glen Bradley and BIGHORN SHEEP ...... L. Glenn ALlred 78 COMPARATIVE STUDY OF NECROSIS ASSOCIATED WITH TEETH L . Glen Allred and IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP ...... W. Glen Bradley 86 GROWTHOF THE SKULLINDESERTBIGHORNSHEEP...... LeeR=Baker and 98 W. Glenn Bradley TECHNIQUES IN HABITAT EVALUATION ...... mm...... Byron R. Donaldson 111 RECENT LITERATUm ...... Jim Yoahm 119 ATTENDEE ROSTER ...... 123

Cover drawing by Pat Hansen GOALS OF THE COUNCIL

John P. Russo Came and Fish Department Phoenix, Ariz on a.

\\hen the Desert Bighorn Council was first thought of by a few interested men and then brought into reality in 1957, its objectives were to allow field men an opportunity to exchange ideas, compare findings, discuss problems and seek solutions to management of deseyt bighorn sheep. The first meeting was made up on personnel from our Southwest; representatives from state and federal agencies and collepes. ?-bstly , the men were directly concerned with management of desert bighorn sheep.

As a result of this first gathering, a purpose for the organization was created, which simply stated: "Established to promote the advancement of knowledge concerning Desert Bighorn Sheep and the long-range welfare of these animals." This is so stated on the brochure that is sent to inquiring individuals. interested in the functions of our organiz ation. The statement quoted is also part of our letterhead.

Shortly after our first meeting the Council adopted a Constitution and Bylaws, and in this governing document we find four objectives. briefly, these are:

(1) To provide for the exchange of information.. . . through meetings and published transactions.. . .

(2) To stimulate and coordinate studies in all phases related to desert bighorn.

(3) To provide a clearing house of information among all agencies, organizations and individuals.. . .through the appointment o f work committees. .. .

(4) To function in a professional advisory capacity, where appropriate, on local, national and international questions involving the management and protections of the desert bighorn, and to adopt such measures as shall tend to

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS promote the advancement of knowledge concerning bighorn and the long-range welfare of these animals.

Those of you who are familiar with the Constitution realize I have quoted the last objective in its entirety. I did so because it is probably the most important and possibly the cradle to the whole organization and its makeup. The last half of the fourth objectives also provided us with the wording of the purpose found in our letterhead.

Although these are objectives, they are to be thought of as goals of the Council and should be given import ant consideration because they have implica- tions that are being questioned today, not only by our own members, but by the administ ration of cooperating agen cies.

In an organization of this type we are exposed to varied personal phi.losophies and ideologies, but often our ideas are guided and influenced by our own organizational policies. In our contacts here we are entertained by many thoughts and ideas with which we may not necessarily agree. For every idea expressed, I am sure someone, someplace can provide a counter-idea, or an argument.

At this point you may wonder how this is related to the goals of the Council. It may simply be stated that we must accept our goal in its basic concept without looking for complicated definitions or hidden meanings to gain a means to an end. The end, in this case, being personal satisfaction. I should like to elaborate on this.

Our four objectives speak for themselves and require little interpretation or explanation. We fulfill our first objective by exchanging information freely in our meetings and in the form of transactions. Pick up a copy of our publication and this is proof enough. From the demand shown for our transactions it may well be considered a success.

Our second goal, or objective has been partially fulfilled. We have certainly stim'ulated studies of desert biqhorn in the past nine years.

Our third noal appears to be the most difficult and requires considerable effort on our part. Lack of time and restricted space limits the effective- ness of committees to make material progress in functioning as a clearing house. The Technical Committee and individual contributions has helped to meet this objective. The Council will continue to profit by fulfilling this goal through the endeavors of interested and cooperating members.

The last Council objective requires some close scrutiny in view of recent events. I did not realize this until I received copies of correspondence

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS stating that one of the agencies' representation would be pulled out of the Council because of a resolution that was written several years ago.

We do not want the Desert Bighorn Council to be treated by State and Federal agencies with studied contempt, nor do we want agencies looking upon us as another spur-of-the- moment, fly-by-night, bandwagon-type organization that corns from a small interested group with the idea of sitting around entertaining ourselves by exchanging yams and waxing sentiment. I am sure that we have all seen such councils, task groups, task forces, committees, work shops, and what not, come and go with the seasons, the moods and the whims of a few, and soon dissipate.

To say we must refrain from mentioning anything that might be controversial is to limit us to a parrot-like conversation of each agent's policy without recourse for debate through scientific thinking. An organization is emasculated when it cannot express itself to the good of the organization, or what it represents, without a furtive, benevolent nod from the parent agency. I should think that the administrative bodies would have more faith in their representatives. I am sure they do.

The Desert Bighorn Council has made several resolutions directed to the welfare of desert bighorn; it has provided a mutual meeting ground where the problems and findings, dealing with desert bighorn, could be discussed; it has generated interest not only among men working with bighorn, but among sportsmen, guides, taxidermists and conservationists ; it has provided an out let for all these findings, knowledge and data; and most of all the Council has become recognized through its own beneficial contributions, materially, financially, physically and intellectually. These are all goals.

I feel that the Desert Bighorn Council cannot idly stand by and watch mismanagemnt of bighorn or bighorn habitat, or the circumvention of authority by those who do not understand the needs of the desert bighorn. Some would have us continue in a line of progressive reasoning, pursuing space age ideas, however with an overhead pull-chain philosophy. We are confronted now with a problem of drageing our feet and paying little attention to anything except discussing bighorn sheep, or we can take into consideration the welfare of this animal in all related fields. If we understand the latter, then we must express ourselves as a unit.

I have heard members say that the Council is "falling apart." We may reflect upon this for a moment to try to analyze why the dissension among the ranks - so to speak.

Throughout the existence of this organiza.tion there have been sounds of discontent brought about by disagreement, dissatisfaction and in some cases petty jealousy.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS On several occasions, members have purposely taken to the floor to "tactfullytt criticize policy of an agency or take a ttsophisticated" oratory "pokett at someone who said something that was not exactly agreed with. Corrective criticism is always welcomed, I am sure, but to excoriate under the quise of corrective criticism should not be allowed in the Council. This is not the place. for a harangue of this type. Wllen this happens we are no longer objectively working in behalf of the organization, rather, we are subjectively tearing it down. Do not let personal sentiment interfere with good j udgment . What is the goal of this organization? I think it is a combination of purpose, as we outline in our brochure and objectives as we mention in our constitution, Without these, we have no other reason or means to conform to any type of an organization. We have no reason for getting together.

However, I feel there is something else we must strive for--a goal that cannot be expressed like a formula. This goal should be the success of the organization through fulfillment of its purpose and its objectives. We would be selfish to sacrifice the Desert Bighorn Council for want of personal satisfaction. We would be derelict in our duties to the conservation of the desert bighorn and its habitat not to take a stand on issues. But, above all this and foremost in our intentions, or goal is the success of the Desert Bighorn Council.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS WHERE HAVE Wll BEEN AND WHERE ARE WE GOING?

Ralph E. Welles National Park Service Joshua Tree National Monument California

The questions, 'Where have we been and where are we going?" are not as easily answered as they might seem. In the first place the questions must be trans- lated to mean, 'What have we achieved to date, and what can we achieve in the future?". There is still a third translation which is probably the most realistic, 'What have we been trying to do up to now? .What are we going to try to do from now on?''

I don't believe anyone could complete a discussion of this subject in twenty minutes or even twenty hours, because there will be inevitable differences of opinions as to the degree of success we have had in the past and as to the course we should set for the future.

I have arrived at a partial inventory after having read every word of all the papers we have published, the recorded bull sessions we have had, and the minutes of our business meetings. I read them all and re-read some of them several times. I made notes as I read and began to put the notes into two columns, one black and one red -- one positive on the success side; one negative, on the failure side. I would earnestly urge this task on all who are seriously concerned with the activities of this Council.

I found much on the positive side, and eventually I began to see where we have been and what we have been doing. For the past nine years we have been at school learning the trade, the profession, which many of us may have thought we had already mastered -- the job of protection and management of the Desert Bighorn and his habitat.

This has taken some doing. In 1959 the Transactions asked this question'' 'Where are we now?" Then answered it in this way: "Our attitude toward our lack of knowledge of the bighorn sometimes reminds us of the general attitude toward money during the Great Depression of the '301s, '~obodyhas any, so why worry?'. The relaxed, 'we're all in the same boat' attitude prevailed for several years and many people remember it as one of the most comfortable periods of their lives. Through no fault of their own they were relieved of the responsibility of being successful. It was easy-going and comfortable for us here as long as we all keep saying, 'We don't how anything about bighorn -- no one does.' It seems

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS to us, however, that the Bighorn Council is about to jar us into maturity. Sooner or later we will be forced into admitting that-we do know somethihg about sheep and if this Council continues to function it will force us into accepting our responsibility of learning about them."

Read the Transactions and you will see that this has happened -- up to a point. Then comes the negative column. It could be argued that the Council has not matured as it should have. It still suffers from certain taboos, some issues are not faced. For instance, is there any.actua1 need of predator control in the Bighorn Management program? Is it possible that predator control may even be a threat to bighorn welfare? Are we squarely facing the issue of exotic introductions into bighorn habitat? Have we had our say about human encorachment in the form of highways into the Desert Game Range? Flooding bighorn habitat by damming the Grand Canyon? The spending of millions on building roads and trails into ancestral bighorn strongholds throughout the desert for every hundred that it spent on it's protection?

And have we come as far as we should until we establish some sort of criteria for our publications? If there anything to be gained by the publishing in 1964 of a rehash of Dr. ~uechner'srehash of seton's rehash of everything he could get hold of prior to 1929?

In 1965 the Transactions published in one paper this astonishing array of mis- leading statements about the bighorn and burros of Death Valley:

The average male desert bighorn will weigh from 250 to 300 lbs.

The Death Valley bighorn tends to migrate according to the season. There is a definite downward migration during spring from the higher elevations, a summer residence at low levels and then a distinct fall migration back to high country.

Copulation takes place during the months of September and October.

The most important single problem occuring in Death Valley National Monument today is the wild burro competition for the bighorn forage.

The burro causes heavy pollution of the water by defecation.

In the Panimint Range the bighorn were present in the 19301s, but left in 1935.

Ample pr.oof of the fallacy of all the above statements has already been published in the Transactions and elsewhere.

Should we keep saying that once a ram reaches 7 years of age he is no longer useful to the herd? And that killing the best specimens over seven, the "trophy rams", will not harm the population? Should we ignore the many observations of these "trophy rams1' being deferred to during the rut by not only the younger rams, but the smaller rams of the same age?

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS A thirteen year old ram sired a lamb in the San Diego zoo. That left him six more years of productivity than we have been allowing him. Does it not follow that as the Trophy Rams of seven years and up are harvested the ratio of breeding opportunities for the inferior rams is increased?

So it would seem.that there is a great deal of the positive and some of the negative in where we have been and what we have been doing. This it all down in black and white and clearly discernible to all who will read it.

Where we are going is not so easy to see. Certainly we should continue to stay in school, so to speak, to continue to learn. And it may be that if this Council continues to function, our first step into the future would be to accept, fully, our responsiblity for doing something about what we have learned -- by stepping out boldly on the path we know we should follow.

This is not easy. We may know what the path is, where it is, and how to take it. But we find the footing insecure and obscured by the clouds of dust raised by the road and trail building into and through the areas we are supposed to be protecting. And the air grows murky with smog as the traffic roars through spewing beer cans and Kleenex over the countryside. Sometimes we find the way completely blocked by the blizzard from Olympus leaving insurmountable drifts of memorandums behind. And as we shovel these drifts aside we find ourselves up to our necks in a quagmire or red tape from which very few of us ever completely extricate ourselves.

Let me once more recommend the Transactions to you, particularly the paper by Dr. William Graf in 1964. He said, "Reduced to its essence the situation is that while a number of dedicated people, largely this group, are much concerned over the welfare of the desert sheep and have gathered together much information about them and have made many worthwhile suggestions that would improve sheep management, nothing has been or is being done, to implement these suggestions. What is the reason for this?"

Then Dr. Graf gives the following answers:

The lack of an administrative decision making policy for the solution of sheep problems.

The lack of delegated authority to qualified field men.

The lack of an organized and coordinated study and research program

Then he wonders whether we really want to do something for the bighorn or are we just going to stand by with a holding action while the sheep become extinct or "are at best reduced to museum pieces in the field."

DESERT BIGHORN COTJNCIL 1966 TwSACTIONS I am not rehashing now, I am quoting because what he said needs repeating and cannot be over-emphasized:

"In view of the lack of action, I wonder whether the various Federal agencies, or many of the state agencies involved, really want more sheep -- or any sheep for that metter. I have good reason to believe that at least some of the administrators of some of these agencies would be much happier if we have no sheep at all -- then we would have no troublesome Bighorn Council to listen to, not to mention even more troublesome academic points of view." If asked about this, these administrators would vehemently deny this -- but their actions would bear it out. ~et'slook at a typical instance, and let me assure you that this is the rule and not the exception.

As most of you know, Mrs. Welles and I, in 1960, completed a ten-year project of bighorn, burro, and water source research in Death Valley. As set forth in our contract, we left behind us a record of all the wildlife water sources in the Monument with recommendations for their maintenance and protection.

In 1965, we visited the Monument and inquired about these water sources to see how our renovation work had stood up and how our recommendations had worked out. There was no one there that we could find who even knew the names of these springs, let alone where they were or what condition they might be in.

Why does this happen? In another area 1 asked an administrative assistant how much, about what percentage, of the mountain of mail on his desk had to do with the all-pervasive people-service orientation, the philosophy which dictates that a11 energies must be bent toward aiding the exploding population of this planet in its enjoyment, its use, and its abuse of our natural resources, and what percentage of it dealt with the conservation, the preservation of these resources for the future. He said, "About 99% of it reflects the people-service orientation, but that is what we are, a people-service organization." "Yes", I said,I1but isn't the preservation of these areas the first service we are supposed to perform for the people?" "Oh, yes", he said, "But I guess that Is just taken for granted!'' And therein lies the gravest danger to the bighorn and to all wildlife on this planet. It is taken for granted, not only by the government agencies charged with the responsibility for preservation -- but by almost everyone else mistakenly believing that simply because these areas are once set aside for the present and all future generations to enjoy, they are therefore safe, that the supply is inexhaustable, and that there should be no limitation set on how it is to be enjoyed, or how much or how fast it is used up.

Let me say again that we cannot effectively deal with the bighorn problem without placing man at the top of the list. Our job is not so much one of knowing how to manage bighorn as it is how to manage ourselves. Unless we make a positive approach to this proposition we may not be going anywhere.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS HOW WIDE IS THE SCOPE OF THE DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL

William Graf San Jose State College San Jose, California

Abstract: How wide is the scope .of the Desert Bighorn Council: It is within the scope of the Council not only to publish research findings but also to interpret the studies and research and take action based on the interrelations.

The Council cannot leave the action to others. To do so would constitute dereliction to .its own objectives and purposes.

The scope of the Desert Bighorn Council must be determined by two things, (1) the objectives of the Council, and (2) by the nature of the organization which seeks to implement these objectives.

The first of these factors is quite simply stated by the Council, "to promote the advancement of knowledge concerning the Desert Bighorn Sheep and the long-range welfare of these animals."

The second, the nature of the organization, is also not difficult to define. It is composed in the majority of professional biologists who devote their efforts to the study of biology, and especially that of wildlife biology, if not entirely the biology of the desert sheep.

The greatest proportion is concerned with the study and management of wildlife, including that of the desert sheep. A few, like myself, are primarily concerned with research and the teaching of wildlife management in public institutions. A few are non-professional people who, nevertheless, are vitally interested in all phases of the stated objectives, and particularly the welfare of these animals.

All members regardless of their training and background have a special interest in wild desert sheep - otherwise they would not be here. It is important to keep this in mind for it has a most important bearing on what determines the scope of the Desert Bighorn Council, particularly as it relates to the second part of the objectives of the Council.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS The purpose of the Council can be divided into two separate ob-jectives, which while not unrelated are nevertheless quite distinct in the way in which they can be implemented and fulfilled.

The first can be implemented simply through diligent study and research and the publication of the results of these efforts. The Council is doing this to the fullest extent of its resources. It is gathering the information and publishing it in its transactions and making it available to all who are interested in it.

The scope of the first objective is not diffccult to define -- anything and every- thing that relates either directly or indirectly to the sheep. It runs the endless gamut of subjects from the ancient to the modern history of the sheep and its past and present range, to the biology and all its complex ramifications related to the sheep internally or externally, individually or collectively and in its relationship to other animals.

The second part of the purpose of the Council "the promotion of the welfare --of the animals" defines the scope of the Desert Bighorn Council in terms of the nature of the people who make up the Council, and their intent to achieve a goal which is not of purely academic interest, but may be actively and specifically subjective.

In this second part of the purpose of the Council we deal not with the gathering of information and its dissemination but in the translation of this information into decisions and actions that will have a definite effect on the welfare of the animals. This part of the purpose calls for action and the achievement of definitely stated results.

This part of the purpose of the Council is related to the first through the management of the animals. The Council's study will reveal what the management was in the past and what it is today. The professional makeup of the people who gather the information will make it possible for them to decide what management is needed now and in the future. The members of the Council must be able to, and should, examine critically their own management and administrative practices and policies and then make the necessary corrections without regard for politics or personal feelings.

Too often in the past, as well as the present, policies have been based on political expediency rather than the actual needs of the. animal under consideration. Just one example with which all of us are well acquainted may be cited here. Consider the widely accepted "multiple use" practice policy which has been so widely heralded and accepted by government agenciea'and conservationists. It has been my experience and observation that in most instances this is only a politically expedient term for what is really a "multiple --abuse and misuse practice policy." The Council must be able to carefully examine and review all such practices and policies and must be prepared to make recommendations for changes when and where needed. In fact it, the Council, is obligated to do this if it is to maintain and fulfill its objectives.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Although it is not difficult to define the objective and purpose of the Council, it must be kept in mind that the implementation of the objectives can be achieved only through those who are properly trained and fitted for this type of work, namely, professional biologists such as those who devote their entire energies to this end.

Long-range welfare through management can best be determined by those having intimate knowledge of the needs of the animals as they exist and as they should exist. Most important, the interpretation of this information and the imple- mentation of the decisions can also best be made by those having the greatest knowledge and understanding of the needs of the sheep. The Council, through its members is best qualified to meet these requirements and standards.

What the needs a£ the animals are or will be can be determined only as the knowledge gathered becomes available to the Council. When such knowledge does become available to it, the Council will have to make a decision regarding the welfare needs and will have to act upon this decision.

It will be the objective and critical analysis by these people, passed on to the interested public officials, that will make possible the support of intelligent programs proposed by the professional biologist as well as the rejection of pro- grams not based on sound biological knowledge by the uninformed or misinformed.

Just what is the scope of action that the Council can and must take to fulfill its professional objectives in its resolve to promote the long-range welfare of the desert sheep?

To develop long-range action, short-range action must also be taken. The Council cannot expect the future to take care of itself if it does not take care of the present. The present is the future of the past, and it is also the past of the future. What happens to the sheep today will determine whether the sheep have any future at all!

The Council should ask itself, "Can we influence the future by merely gathering and publishing information?" "Can this influence the critical and immediate present?" The answer is, ''It 'MAY influence the present, and it MAY influence the future.'' However, that it MAY do so is not enough. It is the Council's responsibility to see to it that it DOES influence both the present and the future.

To be effective, the knowledge must be translated into decisive action, and this must be done when and where it is needed by those best qualified. The Council should, and must, see to it that this knowledge and its interpretation is carried out as quickly as possible, and must take whatever steps may be necessary to carry out their decisions.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Recently it has been suggested that the efforts of the Council be limited merely to the gathering and presentation of information and knowledge - nothing more - that the Council should at most make suggestions. This would, for all practical purposes, result merely in making suggestions to itself and would leave the decisions to others. Since the suggestions are those of the professional biolo- gists, and since the implementation of these suggestions is to be left to "others", it must be assumed that thet1others"are non-professional persons or groups involved in management.

The Council would be derelict to its own professional background and qualifications if it fails to act on its own decisions and if it fails to back its own convictions. To talk to oneself may be comforting, but it gets no work done!

The purpose of the Desert Bighorn Council can and must include action. If it does it will be just another group that is long on talk and short on action - waste oE time and money. It is within the scope of the Council to take positive action to achieve its objectives. Only in this way can it achieve its objectives and only in this way can it justify its existence.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS PROBLEMS OF RECREATIONAL USE OF GAME RANGES

Marcus Nelson Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Kildlife Albuquerque, New Mexico

INTRODUCTION - Pressures on Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges

Today we live with a multiplicity of conflicting views and desires and conflicting economic requirements. In this great age of ours we require the widest variety of food, clothing, transportation, services, and basic products of life. We desire to have all things that give pleasurc and comfort and still keep our game ranges, refuges, wilderness areas, and primitive lands. Along with our urse to grow industrially and economically, we cling desperately to our desire for a place to play, to hunt, to fish, and to have our family re creation.

COF,PETITION FOR SPACE

We in the business of wildlife management find it increasingly difficult to accomplish our objectives in face of the broad attack on the wildlife resource by all forms of recreational and commercial demands. Commercial and industrial competition is probably the most devastating; the effects a.re more permanent and far-reaching.

Public lands, including game ranges and wildlife refuges, are the prim targets today of various indust rial forces--such as the super-highway, the pipeline, navigational channels , utility services, military requirements, space programs, oil and gas and other mineral developments, industrial plants of all kinds, and other important developments that are basic to the national economy. Plany of these uses are aimed at the public lands because they hopefully expect to get them free or at low cost.

Real estate development and expanding residential areas are a real threat to wildlife habitat, too. Even schools and other public institutions have

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS begun to go after portions of some of our wildlife refuges. One of the big threats to wildlife refuges in coastal areas today is the development of big marina and coastal homesites.

So, by and large we live by a social and economic system whbre we as Americans want the very best and the very most and the greatest diversity of all thin~s. Somewhere along the line we may be forced to place our wild lands under security trusts where they cannot be dissipated by our own desires for the good and plentiful life.

RE CREAT I ONAL COMPETITI ON

I have purposely wandered into areas other than recreational use to give a picture of the broad problem, but will try now to describe more specifically the recreational problems facing us today on the game ranges. Our recreational uses fall into several typical types. Most important among these are picnic kin^, camping, exploring, hiking, hunting, and an additional class about which there may be some question whether it could be called recreation, but I am prone to ~utit there--the desire for desert living. This latter one, hein: more a permanent type of a recreational use, may become the most difficult to cope with in the long run.

PICNICKING

Looking upon these various types of recreational uses individually, we find some similarity between the first five. The class of people we consider to be picnickers in the true sense make use of game r~angeswhen they are within reasonably easy driving distance of centers of population. Very little of this type of use occurs in isolated areas such as the Arizona game ranges, but it does occur on the Desert Game Range in Nevada and in other game ranges that lie closer to civilization. Picnicking seems to be one of the least objection- able. The facilities required to meet the needs for picnicking are limited. For insta.nce, it is not essential to supply water for picnicking areas. Naturally, roads, will be necessary to get people into these areas, but picnickers are usually prone to stay reasonably close to the road and not stray far from it, Also they seldom spend more than a few hours in the field.

CAPP ING

The next group of recreational users I wish to discuss is the camper. Now, the camper is a somewhat different individual. He may stay for only overnight, or he may stay for a week, or in some instances even more. This group requires more facilities than the picnicking group, in many instances the camper will go into a country more difficult of access. He will pioneer

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS to a greater extent than the picnicker. This gets him back into areas that are little used by the run-of-the-mill Sunday driver type, who has a horror of getting off the beaten path.

The camper will get back onto the lesser used roads. He needs water if he can get it, I-Ie will.search out the areas for water and shade. Campers will use facilities that are provided, but they will also bring their own gear, too, and will develop their own campsite in many instances. This results in a good deal- more surface disturbance and removal of existing vegetation. I11 many cases a higher incidence of fire accompanies the camper.

So the camper is a versatile individual who seeks out places and stays for a longer time and naturally piles up a little more debris and camping refuse than does the picnicker, primarily because he's there longer. He also may be mare apt to interfere with wildlife than the transient picnicker. There is more of a chance that he may make an effort to obtain food from the wild, and the dangers of poaching are increased.

EXPLORING

The third type of visitor is the explorer. This is a rather small group and generally not too common in the big game ranges, but occasionally the exploring group will seek out the hidden places to avoid civilization. These individuals will go deep into the country, arid we can expect an increase in this type of user of the game ranges.

Analyzing his needs, it is expected that the explorer will spend only a short time in any given area. He will be inclined to cover more country, and he will probably do more photographing and more note taking than the others mentioned, and he may be seeking many things--isolation, minerals, something that no one else has seen, possiloly. The explorer shouldnft be too big a shock to the wildlife on the game ranges.

The hiker is a little different variation of the explorer, very much like him in many ways, but his primary interest is to climb, to hike, to feel the conquest of mountain peaks and to obtain his enjoyment from the exercise and the -iG,Jgorous feeling of success on reaching the pinnacles of some of the higher mountains in game rar?ge areas.

Unlike the explorer, the hiker is probably not too interested in the wildlife and the fauna and the flora that he sees on the way, but is dedicated to the business of seeking altitudes and setting new records. These groups are

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS also known to desire a variety of areas and to seek out new hiking trails, and therefore shoulilnvt spend too much time in the vicinity of bighorn sheep in the came ranqes, There undoubtedly will be many areas in the future where hikinq will become a most importcant pasthe and will constantly bring people in,

'This may result in the actual elimination of bighorn sheep in some locali- ties, or else the ability of the bighorn sheep to live with these people.

Another type of recreational use that must be discussed in any discussion of recreational use types is the hunter. In this instance we speak of the hunter as the big ,game hunter who has either obtained a permit to seek out a record biehorn sheep hea.d for trophy, or is interested in deer hunting in open areas where deer huntinz is permitted,

IIunting is an accepted mana,qement practice with bighorn sheep. There are st ill ar~rnentspro and con as to whether or not Iiunting of bighorns is necessary or is practiced simply because people like to hunt them. Regardless, the hunter is an integral part of this picture and probably will remain so. The question that naturally arises is one of managing the population so that sustained hunting can be accepted over a long-time period without adverse effect on the breeding rams in the herd. There is little doubt that all of us who are engaged in biqhorn sheep management will agree that limited properly managed hunting can be permitted in most situations. Our responsibility is to ensure dispersal and hunter distribution and then to make sure that we know enough about our biqhorn sheep populations to recognize and interpret the results of hunter removal on the herds.

DESERT DWELLING

The final type of recreational use, and mind you, I have probably missed some that many of you can think of, is the desert dweller. This one is born of the urge to live in the desert. Some desert living is the result of necessity, some of it is the result of leisure time, and some of it just for the' sheer joy some people find in living in the desert. NOW, we generally consider unauthorized desert living as squatting, and yet it is difficult to manage this kind of use on the public domain, for instance, where surveillance and restrictions have not yet resulted in much limitation placed on the duration of the individual's stay, An individual may be seeking a nomadic type of existence and spend several months in the desert at different locations. Such an approach to the business of desert living provides great opportunity for difficulties in management.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS On the game ranges we are approaching the imposition of limitations on the length of time that people may camp and to designate definite camping areas. It is obvious that we will be faced as time goes on with the necessity of new restrictions and controls. If the increase in the use of "trailerst' and "campers" and the increase in leisure tine of the American public continues, we will be faced with many new decisions desiLgned to limit public users who desire to live in the desert.

RO CKHOUN D

Along with the other uses mentioned above, we should not close this subject without givin~some thought to the "rock hounds." The rock hound is a mixture of explorer and hiker and camper and desert dweller. Me's an individual who involves himself in all these types; however, his major ambition is to find more special types of rocks. This leads him to the search for minerals in hidden places where other feet have not trod, and in many cases brings him in close contact with bighorn sheep. Except for thc human intrusion factor, hc is not much different from some of the other groulps we have mentioned, but having found a site where he has discovered minerals of value he will stay in an area for a long time, return frequently, and in many cases he may bring others with him. His making a "find" can very well wipe out the potential of a given niche in a bi~game range. We may expect this group to increase alon~with all the others as the population grows and leisure time increases and ncople seek new outlets for their energies.

EFFECTS

Singly, these various recreational types do not exert a limiting influence on big garre, particularly on bighorn sheep. There are many reasons. hen thou,& some like to get back into secludcd places, most of tile using public does not want to leave the (safe) hard-surfaced road. Vost of the using public will stay within the rather limited area of good access. Itany of then feel, after having hiked a half an hour from the road, that they are deep in the wilderness and a thousand miles from anyone. This feeling is probably the createst protection the out-of-doors has.

I I1 JI IAN I NT RIJS I ON

Just how do these recreational uses affect bighonl sheep and bighorn sheep habitat? The human intrusion factor is probably the most importcant influence. The actual xht.5.li.zation of spce and the prevention of big game animls from using water are direct effects that can be measured, but the most important? facet of this thouqh-provoking exercise is just what effect does human intrusion have on bighorn shee~~?There have been instances in some game ranges--and I

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS believe this is particularly true of Desert Game Range in :Jevada--where in the past public utilization of areas around live waters has eliminated bighorn sheep use during certain periods of the year. This is presently not necessarily true of the big ,qame ranges in Arizona; however, that does not mean that it couldn't happen. With waters as scarce and irreplaceable as they are in the Arizona ranges, human utilization for any yurpose would be critical to bighorns.

DESTRUCTION OF COVER

Destruction of cover is a direct result of public use. This comes about from careless fires, from the utilization of what emrgent cover is available for fires and for other purposes. The actual removal of surface vegetation and the trampling and scuffing off of surface cover can be a real problem. This is particularly true in concentrated recreational use areas such as we have in other parts of the country. It is necessary in places even to replace the soil in campsite areas and rcvegetate it. have had to terrace and 'haul in topsoil and use other methods of replacing the eroded-away surface in areas where public utilization is extremely heavy.

WAT E K

Water is very critical in the Southwestern ranges, but the comparative isolation of man-made bighorn sheep waters has avoided problems here to date. We believe competition for water may be a real threat in future years as human populations increase and more people seek the more isolated out-of-doors locations for recreational pursuits.

THE VERSAT I LITY OF THE HI GHO RiY

What effect does all of this have on the bighorn sheep? IIow versatile is this animal? How does he react to the intrusion of people? And here we come up with an enigma that has many, many facets, and, like many of use iiavc said before, if we knew what the animals were thinking we would have a better chance to figure out exactly what effect all of this human intrusion and influence is going to have on them.

There have been many observations. Some of the finest and most detailed that I have heard described were those of Nr. and Mrs. Ralph Kells following their study of the bighorns in Death Valley. rfliey, like others wile study bighorns, have come to realize that no two animals react exactly alike to a given situation, and collectively they exhibit a tremendous variety of reaction.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS PROXIMITY TO MAN (ACCEPTANCE)

A11 we can say at this time is that the bighorn sheep has exhibited enough versatility that he probably will put up with whatever he is forced to until his habitat has been destroyed or until humans have pushed him out of his niche. We have examples of bighorn sheep that have for many years used the Colorado River right below Parker Dam. These bighorns live in the Buckskin Mountains above highly developed private use areas, but they spend mudl of tlieir time durin.5 the winter down among the people. They are seen frequently in -close proximity to residential areas and people habitations.

There are other instances in the vicinity of liavasu Lake where bighorn sheep populations have learned to live with the using public during the summer. They pay very little attention to speedl~oatsand water skiers, and even pay very little attention to "bikinis," we are told. Hut these sheep are a conditioned herd that have lived here since before water skiing came about and have suffered little adverse effects, since they come only to the water's edge and are not competing for the use of the water surface.

The herd in the Bill I'Jilliams Delta has becom accustomed to humanity--in fact, they profit by the products of the Planet Ranch, where they feed in the fall and winter every year.

b'hile there are numerous cases of bighorn sheep living in proximity to pan and a;>~)arentlysurvivin,~ with no ill effects, there are some cases where the intrusion of people has created violent reactions. One example of this was the t rappin,y propram carried out in 1957, 58 and 59 on the Kofa Game Ran~e. The serious trapping took place in the vicinity of Horse Tank, High Tanks 7 and 8, and Tunnel S~rin~.In all, 26 bighorns were removed, 15 were successfully transplanted in Texas and Arizona and 11 died. The intrusion effects were very severe. Bighon sheep literally abandoned the Tunnel Spring area for several years afterwards.

The State of New Mexico had a problem with bighorn sheep in the Hatchet Mountains in tlie 1950's. This area was opened to hunting in 1954 following actual observation of more than 80 head and an estimated twice that number. Eleven bighorns were taken by hunters that year and six more in 1955. In 1956 the record showed an actual count of 60 plus that many more estimated to be present, but during the next five years the herd dropped to almost zero. f3iologists were encouraged in 1964 by the sight of 12 head. There is no known relationshi? between the hunting and the herd reduction.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS So we find numerous instances pro and con where bighorn sheep live happily with man arid where bighorn sheep are affected adversely by the presence of people. IVe must determine that for the adequate protection of bighorn sheep we cannot afford to risk the possibility of any loss .of animals to Inman intrusion if by rnanaement we can prevent the overlapping of human recreation with bighorn sheep native habitat.

9ur conclusions and our philosophy with regard to recreational problems and their effect on big game ranges will have a significant bearing on future efforts to classify critical game range lands in such a way as to afford them lasting protection and a minimum of public interference.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS THE PLACE OF REFUGES IN DESERT BIGHORN MANAGEMENT

Gale Monson Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Washington, D. C.

Before proceeding with a discussion of desert bighorns and refuges, I think it is apropos to consider two questions - first;"What is the status of the desert bighorn in terms of numbers and distribution?" and second, "what is a refuge?"

I believe that we have developed a misleading optimistic concept of desert bighorn numbers and are overly smug about the animal's future safety. The fact is, we do not have adequate census information, for there has been no serious attempt to determine how many desert bighorns there are. ~uechner's 1960 monograph estimated desert bighorn numbers at 6,700 head. The last "Big Game Inventory for 1965'' (Wildlife Leaflet 470, Aug. 1965, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D. C.), whose source of data is chiefly State game or conservation department records, indicates a total of about 7,000 desert bighorns in the United States -- 2,600 in Arizona, 2,515 in Nevada, and smaller numbers in New Mexico, Texas, and Utah. Its California estimate of 2,000 does not differentiate between desert and non-desert bighorns. We have no way of knowing how many are left in Mexico.

Using the above estimates, which I think are too large, we will assume 7,000 as a valid figure for the United States. Compare this with numbers of deer, cattle, or humans. There are more people here in Silver City than there are desert bighorn sheep in the United States. In Arizona there are 80 times as many deer as there are bighorns, 440 times as many cattle, and 230 times as many domestic sheep. There are 500 humans for every bighorn in Arizona! If desert bighorns were scattered evenly over the State, there would be only one in every 44 square miles, or in every 28,000 acres. I believe these comparisons emphasize the point that in the desert bighorn sheep we are dealing with a small number of scattered individuals which in total constitute a fragile population indeed.

In replying to the question, 'What is a refuge?", we might use a number of definitions. The narrow interpretation would envision an area barred to all human use and activity -- an inviolate sanctuary. A broader concept would say that a refuge is an area wherein wildlife is managed and protected in such a way as to create optimum habitat conditions for whatever type of wildlife the area is created for -- for the entire biota, for certain species, or for one principal species. This latter concept is the one usually met with nowadays and, I think, is the definition most of us would use.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS I believe that this discussion-will be more useful for our purpose today if it is concerned only with those areas where desert bighorn management is the chief objective - namely, the Desert Game Range in Nevada, the Cabeza Prieta and Kofa Game Ranges in Arizona, and the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico. I think I can safely say that these are the only extensive areas that are dedicated principally to desert bighorns, with the possible exception of the California refuge along the Palms to Pines Highway. These areas were set aside between 1936 and 1941 mainly to protect the animals from poaching. Today we think of them as areas of habitat vital to.bighorn survival. We can conceive of them as someday being the only areas where desert bighorns may be found.

On these refuge areas, the desert bighorn is regarded as the most important organism. No action is taken without its relation to the bighorn's welfare being carefully considered. Because of the bighorn's place in the ecosystem, anything done to guard its well-being is of benefit to lesser forms of fauna, indeed to the entire biota, and to the overall ecology of the area. Refuge areas are maintained, insofar as possible and advisable, in that essentially natural and unmolested condition necessary for bighorn survival. It is my belief that such single-purpose bighorn management is highly advisable in such areas.

In dedicating a refuge to the desert bighorn, we say this animal needs safeguarding. We say that it is an important animal, of great appeal for its size, beauty, and uniqueness, an integral and symbolic part of our fascinating desert wilderness. Such recognition engenders wide public interest and support, of immeasureable importance when inevitable pressures threaten the desert habitat. Furthermore, I believe that dedicating areas specifically to the desert bighorn calls attention to it on an international scale, and helps our fellow biologists across the line in Mexico to obtain support for their bighorn management program.

In recognition of the facts that much bighorn habitat overall has already been lost, and that human encroachment on desert habitat is rapidly growing, special efforts to inqrease the carrying capacity of the habitat are made on refuges. In other words, the habitat is managed for the greatest good of the bighorn. Among the most important such efforts are development of artificial mountain waterholes, development of existing waterholes and springs, prohibition of road-building that would encourage excessive recreational use, elimination of harmful competition from domestic or exotic ungulates, and regulation through hunting and other means of other wild species that pose a significant threat to bighorn. Regulation of mining and other types of economic use also is important.

Because refuge managers look upon the bighorn as the most important animal of the area, there is a better chance that research into basic bighorn life hsitory or into specific bighorn problems will be initiated. A researcher looking for a place to work on bighorn problems will be apt to select a refuge, because his

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS research will have more meaning where the bighorn environment is better and fewer disturbing influences are present to interfere with his studies. Lone- range studies can be set up without fear of interruption or invalidation because of unrelated human activities. Research findings on refuges can guide us in the management of off-the-refuge populations. This is a real mission of refuges. In this respect, we are not using refuges to the best advantage. Too often they lie fallow.

Neither should we overlook the possible importance of refuges in supplying animals for restocking ranges that once were occupied, or that might become depleted in the future, provided that inhibiting natural or artificial barriers are not present. Both natural spread to adjacent areas and trapping for transplanting to distant areas might be involved.

As subsidiary benefits from single-purpose bighorn management, we can mention the numerous opportunities afforded to study any or all of the many kinds of desert biota under relatively undisturbed conditions, recreation in the form of hiking, photography, picnicking, and bird-watching, to say nothing of hunting that may include the taking of the country's No. 1 trophy animal. In summary, may I say that I feel the desert bighorn needs refuges -- in fact, that refuges are essential to the future existence of the desert bighorn.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS THE MEANING OF ARMY REGULATION 210- 221

Warren E. Kelly Fort Ord Complex - U. S. Army Hunter Liggett Military Reservation Jolon, California

During the twenty three years following 1940, Department of Defense lands increased from 2.5 to 28.7 million acres. World War 11, the Korean War, the Cold War and the space and missile race made these land acquisitions necessary.

Little effort was expended on organized wildlife management programs on Department of Defense lands prior to 1955 and the public voiced little concern over the lack of adequate resource management. During 1955 an attempt was made to incorporate 10,700 acres of the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge into adjoining Fort Sill Military Reservation. This action by the military caused much contro- versy and prompted conservationists to seek natural resource management on military lands which, in part, let to the proposal and passage of the Engle Military Lands Bill (Public Law 85-337) in 1958. The Engle Bill provided:

That all hunting, fishing, and trapping on military installations be in accordance with state laws.

That state licenses be obtained for hunting, fishing, and trapping on military lands.

That, subject to safety and military security requirements, state and federal conservation officials be granted access to military lands to effect measures for the management, conservation, and harvesting of fish and game resources.

The Engle Bill was the forerunner of resource management on military lands, but the Sikes Military Lands Bill (Public Law 86-797) provided the guidelines that were necessary to promote effectual planning, development, maintenance, and coordination of fish and game conservation and rehabilitation on military lands.

These two public laws initiated Army Regulation 210-221, dated 24 July 1962, and amended 29 April 1964. This regulation contains the current operating policies and procedures for resource management on military lands.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS THE PURPOSE OF AR 210-221

Army regulation 210-221 prescribes the general policies and procedures for the management, conservation, and harvest of fish and game resources on Army installations and facilities located in the United States and containing land and water areas suitable for conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and other natural resource,s.

In AR 210-221 the Department of the Army established the following policies:

The Department of the Army, as an important occupier of federal lands, has an obligation to the American people to act responsibly and effectively in natural resource management. This includes the obligation to restore, improve, and preserve through wise use management the renewable natural resources of the lands and waters is controls.

Department of Army personnel at all echelons of command must support national conservation policies and program in accordance with the regulation.

Appropriate commanders will take the initiative to seek out help and to work effectively and in harmony with federal, state, and local conservation officials and with conservation agencies which are officially chartered, which are equipped, and manned by personnel trained to render professional advice and technical assistance.

All installations and facilities should be managed so as to:

Protect and preserve the watersheds, the soils, the beneficial forests and timber growth, and the beneficial vegetative cover as vital elements of an optimum fish and wildlife program.

Utilize and care for natural resources in the combination best serving the present and future needs of the United States and its people.

Provide the maximum multiple use for the optimum ecological development of land and water areas and access thereto for the enjoyment of and use by the public in compliance with the natural resources policies and goals of the United States except where a specific finding has been made that the over- riding military mission requires a temporary or permanent suspension of such use.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS In developing agreements and procedures with federal, state, and local authorities, representatives of the Department of the Army will bear in mind at all times the importance of establishing, maintaining, and improving community relations.

This regulation also specifies the conditions for access to military lands by the public, federal, and state conservation officials. Controlled public access is to be within manageable quotas, subject to safety requirements and military security, and at such times as access can be granted without bonafide impairment of the military mission as determined by the installation commanders.

In those instances where all public access must be withheld, the reasons must be logical and substantial. Federal and state conservation officials provided installation access will be issued an identification card and pass permit by the installation commander for use under terms specified in the cooperative agreement. Installation commanders have the following duties and responsibilities for resource management in their respective areas:

Hunting, fishing, and trapping at each installation will be authorized and controlled by the installation commander in accordance with locally published post and station regulations promulgated in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, Army regulations, and the Cooperative Plan, if such plan has been executed.

In those instances where state laws do not grant the necessary equality of treatment or waiver of residency requirements, commanders of installations over which the Federal Government exercises exclusive jurisdiction may apply through appropriate channels for authority to issue permits to military personnel to hunt, fish, or trap on such federal areas without the necessity of securing a state or county license.

The installation fish and wildlife program will be conducted with available assistance from appropriate federal and state fish and wildlife specialists. Operational responsibilities will be exercised as follows:

The Post Provost Marshal will:

Inforce all hunting, fishing, and trapping laws and regulations.

Receive and process applications for hunting, fishing, and trapping.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Establish and issue special hunting and fishing licenses and permits and collect related fees.

Determine optimum levels of public participation.

Establish maximum manageable numbers of hunters, fishermen,.and trappers by areas.

Provide daily schedules of areas available for hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Conduct predator control programs.

The Post Engineer will:

Prepare an installation cooperative plan.

Prepare the installation report.

Develop detailed fish and wildlife management plans and coordinate them with land management and woodland management plans.

Conduct fish and game inventories.

Establish fish and game harvest quotas and harvest seasons within the framework of federal and state laws.

participate in cooperative fish and wildlife research.

Monitor installation participation in the Secretary of Defense Conservation Award.

The Post Special Services Officer will:

Furnish trained supervision for organized group hunts.

Promote the organization and development of conservation clubs.

Plan and promote the development of recreational facilities such as boat docks, swimming beaches, camping sites, and picnic areas. Military lands fall into two categories of jurisdiction - concurrent and exclusive. On portions of installations and facilities over which concurrent jurisdiction has been obtained, the state laws, including licensing requirements, are operative as such and are enforceable by state of local officials.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS On installations or facilities over which exclusive federal jurisdiction exists, the penal laws of a state relative to fish and game, concerning bag limits, seasons, and other such conservation measures, are operative only as federal laws and are enforceable by federal officials. State officials are without authority in such areas but may exercise authority as federal officials if the officials are serving in a dual capacity as both a state and federal officials.

Commanders of installations having a potential for the program within the concept of this regulation will appoint a conservation committee to assure balanced action and continuity of application on the part of a number of installation activities. The conservation committee makes recommendations to the installation commander for proposed fish and wildlife projects, purchase of equipment, and changes in the cooperative agreement or installation management plan.

The Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior have developed a model cooperative plan, coordinated and approved by the International Association of Fish and Game Commissioners, which is designed to outline a program of planning, develop- ment, maintenance, and coordination of wildlife, fish, and game conservation and rehabilitation at installations and facilities. Such cooperative plans will be executed for all military installations which contain land and water areas suitable for the conservation and management of fish and wildlife.

The cooperative plan specifies the fees that may be charged military and civilian persons for hunting, fishing, or trapping. Such fees are to be utilized on the installations from which they were collected for the protection, conservation, and management of fish and wildlife, including habitat improvement and related activities as may be stipulated in the cooperative agreement, but for no other purpose.

Persons, both military and civilian, receiving permits to hunt, fish or trap must have in their possession a valid state, territorial, or county hunting, fishing, or trapping license.

CONCLUSION

Army Regulation 210-221 means:

That conservationists can now be assured that proper resource management is being accomplished on Department of Army lands.

That soldiers on active duty are allowed hunting and fishing privileges at nominal fees and can participate in wildlife programs on the installation where they are stationed.

That civilian sportsmen may enjoy access to many thousands of acres of Department of Army recreation land and water for hunting and fishing.

That federal and state conservation agencies have additional areas of land and water available for management and research.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS REFERENCE S Joselyn, G. Be 1965. Wildlife management on military installations - a critique of army policy. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 29(l) : 215-224. . 1964. Installations: natural resources-management afld harvesting of fish and wildlife. Army Regulations 210-221, 29 April 1964, Washington, D. C. 14 PP* . 1963. Fort Ord Complex hunting and fishing regulations. Fort Ord Regulation 210-10, 12 June 1963, Fort Ord, California. 7 pp, 3 Changes.

1963. A cooperative plan for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife on the Fort Ord Complex. A cooperative agreement between California Fish and Game Department, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Fort Ord Complex. 22 May 1963, Fort Ord, California. 6 pp. . 1964. Fort Ord Complex fish and wildlife conservation program. post Engineer report. Fort Ord, California. 67 pp. . 1965. Fort Ord Complex fish and wildlife conservation program. Post Engineer report. Fort Ord, California. 52 pp.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONCEPT OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND THE PROBABLE EFFECTS ON DESERT BIGHORN

James A. Blaisdell National Park Service Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

In evaluating the merits of a National Park Service paper that has as its main theme "wildlife management", you may have uppermost in your minds the question "what management?" The National Parks have always practiced wildlife management, although usually it could be considered management is the passive form; the hands-off policy is surely a kind of management. But the National Park Service administrative policy has changed in this regard, with the passive form rapidly changing to an active and directive form. Many of your National Parks and Monuments are now involved in management programs carried out by either park biologists or wildlife rangers. An example of this is the research and management of the mule deer herds in Grand Canyon National Park upon which I reported at the New Mexico-Arizona Section of The Wildlife Society earlier this year. The following figures might be of interest, and an aid in realizing the magnitude of the biological problems that are encountered in management of wildlife and related natural resources within the exterior boundaries of areas administered by the National Park Service (as listed in the 1962-63 publication, "Wildlife Management in National Parks") :

14,433,329 acres of valuable wildlife habitat

24 park areas with known deer problems

8 park areas with deer control programs

7 park areas with elk problems

5 park areas with elk control programs

18 park areas with bighorn sheep, all species

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS 8 park areas needing reintroduction of bighorns, all species

14 park areas impaired by exotics

50 park areas needing investifation of major species

25 park areas needing reintroduction of extirpated species

57 park areas having wildlife as a major visitor interest

Much is being accomplished in this field. Obviously, additional work is necessary, and increased emphasis must be placed upon the management phases of our wildlife programs. Hopefully, more will be done, more personnel with wildlife training and backgrounds will be placed in the field, and the work will be considered as important as all other aspects of resource management in the National Park system.

In the first place, what brought about the wildlife problems with which we are so concerned? The situation now found in some park areas are often no different than those found in areas administered by other federal and state agencies and were caused by the same unfavorable past concurrences. In the case of the bighorn, the effects of the westward expansion of civilization, physical developments that have been in direct conflict with the bighorn's welfare, unfavorable land operations, early day excessive hunting by prospectors and explorers, competition for a nitch in which to survive, and other decimating factors are still being felt although some of the damage is being rectified. It is not known whether or not the bighorn populations on land administered by the Service were ever larger than they are today except where these animals are known to have existed and have now disappeared. We feel that with proper management the bighorn can not only increase in its distribution but in its numbers as well. Also, we feel that most of the management methods utilized by other agencies to increase the bighorn's chances of survival can and should be continued or introduced into Park Service areas.

What has brought about this drive to improve our wildlife situation through increased management? We can list several equally important causes: recognition of problems and the willingness of administrators to cure our wildlife ills; addition of technically educated and trained wildlife personnel both in the field and at higher levels, the acceptance of the Service of advice given by experts in the wildlife field, and a general reconsideration of wildlife policies to fit the problems. The philosophy remains intact, but the methods and policies sustaining the philosophy have changed by updating and modernization.

Probably the acceptance by the Secretary of the Interior of the Leopold Comittee Report "Wildlife Management in the National Parks" has been one of the most significant steps forward. Not only were the broad philosophies of the Service upheld, but the recommendations for wildlife management aims agreed generally with those expressed so often by Park Service technicians.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Prior to the submission of the Leopold Report, the Park Service was laying the groundwork for management programs by the establishment of the Branch of Wildlife Management in Washington, D. C., with two biologists guiding the Branch, by establishing five regional biologist positions, and by the assigning of approximately eleven park biologists to the larger parks. In addition, there are numerous wildlife ranger positions for smaller areas and areas where the wildlife problems are not so complex. We are fortunate that we are at least partially prepared personnel wise to implement the recommendations of the Committee, but increased numbers of men trained for this work will be needed if the job is to be a thorough one.

The Congressional Act of August 25, 1916, that created the National Park Service clearly specified as one of the Service's purposes the preservation of native animal life. In fact, probably the most important statement in this Act written fifty years ago says, "... which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

Did the author of this Bill, or the Congress, or the National Park Service write these words "conserve" and "unimpaired" to mean the total protection to which our wildlife has been subjected for so many years? Have we been wasting our wildlife and habitat resources as a result of this total protection? Does present Park Service philosophy allow environmental management methods practiced by other conservation agencies? An affirmative answer to all of these questions is definite. We hope that the future will see energetic management and proper park and recreation area use of all species in all Park Service areas, and the word "conservation", of both the wildlife and the scenery, will be considered in its proper prospective. Conservation should be considered to mean the wise use of the resource for the greatest number of people. We cannot continue in the wildlife business without well thought-out management procedures.

Now, to return to the National Park Service concepts of wildlife management; do they or can they affect the bighorn? In discussing the subject, I think the most satisfactory outline to follow would be that presented in the Leopold Report.

First, what should be the goals of wildlife management in the National Parks? "As a primary goal", the report states, "we would recommend that the biotic associations within each park be maintained, or where necessary recreated, as nearly as possible in the condition that prevailed when the area was first visited by the white man. A National Park should represent a vignette of primitive America." This certainly would be placed on the plus side of the ledger so far as bighorns are concerned. In many Park Service areas there is proof that the bighorn existed historically. Pictographs and petroglyphs drawn or chisled by the ancients indicated the bighorn's past presence and use. Writings and drawings by early explorers most certainly mention them.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Many of our larger parks and recreation areas that are located in historical bighorn range now list the bighorn as a part of their fauna. Some do not, Big Bend and Zion National Parks, for instance. Our goal, then, would be, maintain the bighorn in areas where they are now found, and reintroduce them into formerly occupied ranges within the park system. Of course, when we speak of "associations" we must include more than the animal itself. Is everything else there that the bighorn needs, and that was there perhaps 400 years ago? This will be difficult if not impossible to determine, but we realize that the problem involves much more than turning loose a "batch" of bighorns. This is where research will be needed. This is where the Council can help us through publication of certain studies. And this is where an interested scientist can look for the theme of.his next paper. If we are to turn back the pages of history, we will need to know what the old days were like.

Again referring to the Leopold Report, and the second question regarding concepts, the Committee asks, 'mat general poltcies of management are best adapted to achieve the predetermined goals?" The preservation of various ecological com- munities will necessitate management policies to fit them. Some situations will need no management whatsoever. Others that in former decades were managed by nature will now need assistance possibly through controlled burning, thinning or other methods heretofore considered unholy in Park Service circles.

One management policy, then, would be to stop thinking in terms of always letting nature take its course because natural conditions are no longer with us in most cases. The quote, "Conservation is intelligent cooperation with nature" could well be considered applicable here. This leads to another area of needed research, not only by range type, but area by area. What is good for the goose may not always be good for the gander!

Another policy recommended by the Committee reiterates the former standards that animals and plants be limited to native species. The decision here is in favor of the bighorn since Service areas where this animal is now found were all formerly occupied. The future in the parks, monuments and recreation areas of the burro, wild horse, feral goat and other introduced species now present, and some exotics that may invade these areas in the future is well spelled out. Even before the Leopold Committee Report was accepted by the Secretary of the Interior and field areas were instructed to put the recommendations to use, many areas were controlling exotics based upon the older policies regarding these animals. Although a few researchers have found little actual competition between the bighorn and some of the exotics, I cannot help but think that decreased competition, if only for space, would assist in spreading the bighorn populations. Experience at Grand Canyon has shown that bighorns are moving into areas that the burros previously occupied, and visitors on trails observe them more often than before. In addition to possible competition, these exotics never have been considered native species, and are therefore not to be considered a part of the natural fauna of any of the natural park areas.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Another policy recommended by the Committee, and one which should be considered when discussions are held regarding new or additional Park Service area, is that roadless wilderness areas be preserved as such. The report states, "Roadless wilderness should be permanently zoned", and "the goal is to maintain or create the mood of wild America." It recommends that if visitors to the park areas become too numerous for the present road systems, visitation should be rationed rather than expand road systems, into wilderness country, and thereby prevent over-development of motorized travel. Here again, the bighorn will benefit.

Returning once more to the concepts of park management, the third question is, "What are some of the methods suitable for on-the-ground implementation of policies?" It has been the concensus of some individuals (including newsmen) and organizations that the ~ationalPark Service cannot and will not institute management of habitat and wildlife because of past philosophies and Nothing could be further from the truth. It has been done before, and it will be magnified in the future. If exotics exist, they will be eliminated; this automatically precludes the possibilities of sustained competition between bighorn and exotics. If habitat management is proven necessary, it can be accomplished. If water was more abundant historically or if certain native food plants have disappeared or are diminishing, they can be replaced through intelli- gent research and management methods. Isn't replacement of native forage plants just as important a function as replacement of redwood trees in some other areas? We believe so.

The Leopold Committee, as some of you may recall, discussed at some length the importance of preserving a balanced wildlife community through protection of a11 predators both within the boundaries of the Park Service natural areas and in a buffer zone outside the boundaries. Predation has been considered a population control method for many years in the Service, and has in most instances been helpful. However, the Committee did not comment upon cases where predator control might be an important function in the preservation of rare or endangered species, or the possible inclusion of predator control where it might be the key to sustaining the balanced community. When and if the need for predator control is suspected for certain areas, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, under the 1960 Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies, may develop and recommend wildlife management techniques and may include animal control methods when they are required, I would think that this includes predators. I would also think that great care and extensive research into historical and present predator-bighorn relationships would be a "must". Little has actually been proven along these lines, according to available literature, but perhaps through future meetings of the Desert Bighorn Council, these relationships will be brought to focus.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS By now, you should be aware of at least two facts regarding concepts of wildlife management in the Park Service. One is that accomplishment of management for the welfare of all species of wildlife, including habitat manipulation and animal population controls, can be realized and is being planned in individual area master plans. The other is that a great variety of research programs is needed, and they are being planned on a management oriented basis. It is obvious that the Service will be unable to completely satisfy the research needs without increased funds, more technicians, and intensified interest on the part of administrators.

Because of this, we continually press toward greater use of the park areas by outside researchers. These areas are fine outdoor laboratories for obtaining information relative to working toward Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy degrees, for students of wildlife management, and for other interested individuals, clubs, and organizations desiring data on particular species. The park, monument and recreation area boundaries are not impenetrable to researchers. And believe me, the knowledge gained would be of equal importance to the Service.

It would be difficult to list all of the research work that has been accomplished by outside investigators in National Park Service zreas, but there has been a considerable amount. Publications regarding the desert bighorn on these areas are much less in evidence, and the need for them is great. Perhaps with all of us working on this together, through the Technical Committee of the Desert Bighorn Council, we can accomplish the work, provide' a sound basis for management, and eventually become completely certain about the future of the desert bighorn throughout its range. RECORDS OF THE SAN ANDRES REFUGE DEER HUNTS

Roger A. Smith San Andres National Wildlife Refuge Las Cruces, New Mexico

Abstract: This paper presents a picture of the desert bighorn sheep population as it is related to the mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) (Ovis canadensis) popu- lation of the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge. An attempt is made to show some of the obstacles which have hampered the management of the area and how they have been overcome.

To what degree the management objectives of the Refuge are being accomplished are shown through the use of annual hunting records and population figures.

INTRODUCTION

Many of you are familiar with the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge and perhaps have visited us at Las Cruces, or attended the 1960 Desert Bighorn Council Annual Meeting which was held here. For the benefit of those of you who are newcomers to the Council, such as myself, and have not yet had the opportunity to visit many of the bighorn sheep areas throughout the southwest, I would like to give a brief rundown on our area.

The San Andres National Wildlife Refuge was created by Presidential Proclamation on January 22, 1941, as a mammal refuge for the management, protection, and pro- pogation of the Mexican bighorn sheep, (Ovis canadensis mexicana).

The Refuge is located in the southern part of the San Andres Mountains approximately twenty-five miles northeast of Las Cruces and consists of 57,215 acres of the roughest mountain range in the southwest. The east face of these mountains consist of stairstep-like cliffs that range in height from one foot to several hundred feet. The west face is a long slope that rises from 5,800 feet to 8,200 feet.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS This narrow semi-desert mountain range is one of several north-south lying ranges in south-central New Mexico. The Refuge itself includes approximately twenty-one miles of the southern part of the San Andres Range.

For the most part, the Refuge is in the Upper Sonoran Zone, although the lower elevations are in the Lower Sonoran Zone.

Annual precipitation averages from approximately eight inches at the lower elevations to twelve inches in the higher elevations. Much of this rainfall occurs as heavy summer thundershowers causing heavy runoff.

Generally temperatures are quite mild, with winter temperatures normally not getting below fifteen degrees and summer days seldom ever above one hundred degrees.

DISCUSSION

When the Refuge was established in 1941 it was an overlay on the Forest Service on the west side of the mountain range, as an approximation Figure 1. Later this area was changed over to the Agricultural Research Service. The east side of the Refuge was overlain by the Grazing Service (now the Bureau of Land Management). In 1945, the Army came in with their missile firing range and signed a co-use contract with all parties within the area. Later in 1950, they felt they could no longer operate under these conditions and were granted an exclusive-use contract. This excluded all persons and domestic stock from the White Sands Missile Range of which the Refuge is a part. At this time, the United states Fish and Wildlife Service drew a contract with the military to continue to operate the Refuge as we had in the past. The contract states that we will be permitted to carry on hunts.necessary to good game management.

Later, the New Mexico State Game and Fish Department signed contracts with both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the military to cooperate in the proper manage- ment and care of wildlife within the area. More recently, in 1962, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has entered into the picture by overlaying sixteen sections on the south end of the Refuge, which in turn overlays the White Sands Missile Range (see Figure 1). As you can begin to see by now, the administration of this area becomes quite involved with the several organizations that have a finger in the pie.

At the time the Refuge was established in 1941, as estimated thirty-three bighorn sheep were present on the Refuge with no known sheep in the surrounding areas. A management plan was initiated at this time by the Fish and Wildlife Service with the results that this herd of desert bighorns was brought from the brink of oblivion to the reality of a healthy growing herd.

DE SERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Presently the herd, which has spread to areas outside the Refuge, contains approximately 400 animals. Briefly, the management policies have included the exclusion of domestic stock, the elimination of feral stock, local public education and support, the removal of excess deer by legal hunting under Federal and State supervision, intensive patrol, and persistent predator control,

In March 1942, the first attempt to determine the extent of the deer population on the newly established Refuge was made. The purpose of this sample survey was to determine whether the deer population was increasing to a point approaching or equal to the carrying capacity of the range; the general condition of deer forage plants; the approximate number of deer in the area; whether there was then or likely to be competition between deer and sheep which might be detrimental to the best interests of the sheep; and finally to make recommendations to the Game Commission and the Fish and Wildlife Service for control of the deer herd if necessary. The range survey party was composed of representatives from local conservation organizations such as the United States Forest Service, the Soil Conservation Service, the Bureau of Land Management, Dona Ana County Game Protective Association, New Mexico State Game and Fish Department, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Upon completion of the survey the party concluded that for the most part browse plants were in good condition and generally not over-used, and that the deer population was not greater than the carrying capacity of the range.

From their observations, the party estimated a population of 700 deer on the area and recommended that 200 permits be issued for an either sex hunt the following fall. Through the discussion that followed this survey, it was agreed by all parties that a program should be instituted to hold the deer herd at its present level or below to keep down competition between deer and bighorn sheep. Although the survey party was sincere in their estimate and did make sound recommendations, this instance is a good example of the dangers of making population estimates from short-term observations. Throughout the survey Arthur Halloran (Refuge Manager at that time) contended that the estimate was too low and that the population over the entire area was considerably higher.

Under our contract with the New Mexico State Game and Fish Department, we hold an annual range survey to determine the number of permits to be issued. This survey is conducted each year by the Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico State Game and Fish Department, and the Agricultural Research Service. The number of permits to be issued must be agreed upon by all participating parties.

The fall of 1942 saw the first hunt held on the Refuge, and this has been continued to date with the exception of the years 1944 and 1945 when it was canceled due to the war.

After 1945, another factor that complicated getting a hunt set up was the military firing schedule. Before any dates could be decided upon clearance must be obtained from the Missile Base to be sure that no firing is scheduled for this time.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS During the first hunt and up until 1953, the Refuge Special Hunt was open to coincide with the New Mexico big game season. According to the 1942 hunting regulations, the open hunting area included the western clopes of the Refuge to a point approximately one-half mile west of the rim of the San Andres Range (see Figure 1). Deer were plentiful over-the entire area. The areas that the sheep inhabited at that time, and still do have the largest con- centrations, are the steep bluffs along the east face of the range.

The presence of the Refuge did not have any great effect on the nearby hunting. The areas both north and south of the Refuge were open to hunting. Possibly the greatest restriction to the hunter during these early hunts was the extreme isolation and lack of roads into the area. Until 1953, there were only three roads entering the Refuge and these did not get into the rougher areas near the sheep concentrations.

From the statistics of this first hunt, it looks at first glance as though we had a successdul hunt - 186 hunters taking 131 deer for a 70 per-cent kill. What is wrong with that? Now let's see where these deer were killed. From information collected at the checking station a spot kill map was made and the sad results began to appear. By far the largest per-cent of deer killed were taken near the roads or at their terminus which was at the lower elevations. One good example of this was the Rope Springs area where forty deer were taken in both 1942 and 1943. It now begins to appear that we had not accomplished too much as far as reducing the deer population over the entire Refuge was concerned. Further evidence of this began to show up shortly after the hunt when 63 deer were noted during one day between Rope Springs Canyon and Salt Canyon, a distance of less than five miles. This area is in the heart of the heaviest hunted part of the Refuge.

In order to clarify to some degree the question of deer numbers on the area, the Refuge Manager instituted a sex-age count from August to December 1943. From these counts it was determined that the 700 head estimate in 1942 was far too low and the 1943 population was estimated at 1,428.

Looking at the results of the 1943 hunt (see Table 1) we find that although the number of hunters remained the same and the deer population had increased, the kill and per-cent of take dropped significantly.

After results of these first two deer hunts were reviewed, it was generally agreed that increasing the number of hunters to the area in itself would not increase the kill, but that some method if acquiring better hunter distribution would have to be found.

Although it was recognized that the Refuge as a whole could certainly stand a further reduction in the deer population, due to the wartime restriction and rationing, it was decided to discontinue the hunt during 1944 and 1945.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS In 1946 the annual hunt was again resumed and although the number of hunters to the area was not increased during the next few years, several methods of distributing the hunting pressure into the critical areas were tried.

The old road leading into San Andrecito Spring was repaired in an attempt to get hunters into this area, but because the road was so sandy, it was impossible to travel it with a two-wheel drive vehicle. At this point, a taxi service was set up with a Refuge four-wheel drive powerwagon taking hunters into the area and hauling their deer out after they had been killed.

Another method of encouraging hunters to get into the rougher areas such as Goat Mountain and Leap Camp where deer populations were critical was to provide a packing service and horse rental. In 1947, 25 of the permits issued were desig- nated for the Goat Mountain area.

All of this had little affect on getting the hunters into the area where we wanted them and in 1949 there were only 47 deer taken from Goat Mountain.

Now let's drop back and see what the sheep population has been doing during these past few years. From observations and surveys conducted, it was considered that the sheep populations had been slowly but steadily increasing. During these first few years it is questionable if the sheep actually received much relief from the number of deer that were taken. Although we had been holding hunts and did reduce the deer herd slightly, the deer taken were at the lower elevations in areas that sheep did not frequent except on rare occasions.

It is possible that the predator animal control program which was being carried on contributed as much as this sheep population increase as any other factor.

Up to this point it seems that most of the trouble has been poor hunter distribution and underestimating the deer herd, thus undercropping not only the annual increase but also the breeding herd. Over a period of the first 11 years of the history of the Refuge this situation existed and was only partidlly remedied. In 1950 the situation was probably at its worst. As the public became aware of the Refuge hunt it gained popularity every year and in 1949 the New Mexico State Game and Fish Department reported 900 to 1,000 applications were received for the 200 permit's available. In 1952 the permits were doubled, but again this heavy hunting was not concentrated in the critical areas.

The following year the Refuge hunt gained even more popularity and has continued to do so to this date. The major cause of this has been from military restriction. In 1950 when the military was given exclusive jurisdiction over all lands they occupied, they proceeded to close these areas to all hunting. With the closure of these lands it virtually eliminated all deer hunting in the Las Cruces area except for the Refuge.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Beginning in 1951 we entered a drouth period which continued over the next eight years. To point out the seriousness of this condition, I would like to quote a section from our annual narrative report for that year.

"Our major foods for these animals are silktassel and mountain mahogany. These plants have suffered almost to the extreme during this severe drouth period. About fifty per-cent of the silktassel and mountain mahogany have died during this period, and the balance is in danger of dying if moisture is not forthcoming. There was no annual growth of any plants on the area during this year. The plants which usually grpw very well on the area have died from the lack of water. During this period we have been in deep canyons near major watering places and have found considerable more dead deer than we have previously found near these water holes. We found fourteen dead deer in the canyon where Goat Springs is located, nine were found near Bighorn Springs. We have been in almost all the canyons on the north end of Goat and Bennett Mountains and have found dead deer in every canyon that we have been in."

During the next few years the deer herd was finally reduced to the level which had originally been recommended back in 1942 when the Refuge was started. There were several factors which worked to bring this about. The two most important things that contributed to this besides the die-off due to the drouth, was the extension of roads and the increase in permitted hunters.

In 1953, several roads were built. While these were very primitive roads, they did serve the purpose of getting hunters into the areas which had long been a problem.

On the south end of the Refuge six and one-half miles of road were roughed out to give access to the critical areas of Goat and Bennett Mountains. Most of this road had to be blasted out of solid rock. Some spots in this road were so steep and rough that a powerwagon had to be used to assist hunters up the steeper inclines. This same year seven miles of road were built into the north end of the Refuge. This opened up the areas of San Andrecito and Block Mountain. Other short stretches of access road were opened down several of the main canyons to the east. Hunting boundaries were also changed, moving the eastern boundary approximately one mile further east and including the east face of the mountains.

Looking back to Table 1, we see that during the period of 1953 to 1956, there was also a sharp reduction in the sheep population. Some of this reduction began earlier than actually is indicated by the numbers on the table. In July 1950, the badly decomposed carcasses of five sheep were found near lower Goat Springs and nine more sheep in the general vicinity. Immediately an extensive investigation was begun to determine the cause of death. Several specialists from the fields

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS of biology, botany, parasitology; and veterinary medicine were called in to assist with the investigation. After several weeks of investigations the conclusion was that these animals had died from plant poisoning. From all indications the deaths probably resulted from eating the bloom of sacahuista grass (Nolina microcarpa) which was abundant in the area at that time.

How many more animals, both sheep and deer, may have died from the same cause is not known, but it is reasonable to believe that these were not the only ones. Whether there were any sheep losses from malnutrition during the drouth years is not known for there were no positive cases found.

There were however, losses due to animals migrating to other areas. Several instances of this were noted. It was felt this was due to food conditions caused by the drouth.

In 1957, drouth conditions were relieved when rainfall returned to normal. Even though precipitation was back to normal, it would take many, many years for the vegetation of the area to recover.

In order to hold the deer herd down to the low level it had reached during the drouth years and give the range a change to recover, it was decided to increase the number of hunters to the area. As you can see from Table 1, in 1962 as many as 1,760 hunters were permitted on the area.

At this same time, two watering units were put in, one at St. Nicholas and one on Goat Mountain, in an attempt to draw deer into areas where they would be more accessible to the hunters. Thus far these units have served their purpose well and the kill in these areas has been increasing each year.

After trying these large numbers of hunters for a few years and comparing the deer kills, we have found that raising the number of permitted hunters over 600 gives little added results (see Figure 2).

Safety to the hunter also has to be considered. From observations in the field during hunting hours, it is felt that the area cannot safely support more than 1,000 hunters.

Let's look again at the sheep population in Table 1. Since the population hit a low of 53 in 1953 there has been a steady increase up to the present time when we now have approximately 200 head on the Refuge (see Figure 3).

During this period we have been able to control the deer herd and hope to be able to continue to do so. To what point we shall be able to increase the sheep population remains to be seen. At present the future for the sheep on the area looks bright and we intend to do everything within our power to keep it that way.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS

* a \

U S Forest Service U. S. Bureau of Land Management

0.

,9~?.@ ' './ .*=' 1 m.-9-9 om-. \ *-•

National Aeronautics & Space Administration

LEGEND

Boundary San Andres Refuge Boundary Between U, S. Forest Service & U. S, Bureau of Land---- Management National Aeronautics & Space Administration Boundary

Figure 1. United States government agencies which overlay the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge. Hunters, Deer Kill

Figure 2. Number of hunters vs. number of deer killed during deer hunts on San Andres ~ationalWildlife Refuge.

BIGHORN SHEEP MANAGEMENT ON THE NATIONAL FORESTS

John M. Hall IT. S. Forest Service Albuquerque, New Mexico

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this Desert Bighorn Council meeting and to give you a little bit of the history and research results that may be significant in future management of bighorn sheep habitat. Throughout this presentation the species or sub-species of sheep is purposely avoided. However, a few slides I will show at the end will indicate a wide variation of habitat for bighorn.

Records of bighorn sheep on forests of the Southwestern Region go back almost to the time the National Forests were set aside in the late 1890's and early 1900's. This information is somewhat sketchy and at times rather inconclusive, but very interesting.

A report written in 1917 says, "The estimate of 500 mountain sheep on the Kaibab Forest is purely guesswork as we have no definite way of determining even approximately how many there are!'. If the reporter was alive today he probably would be surprised to know that we still have these kinds-of problems. This report went on to say, "They are confined to the deep gorges and breaks of the Grand and Kanab Canyons and are rarely seen or molestedr'. The next sentence in the report really closes the door in your face; "In all liklihood they are decreasing in number as ithas been reported they are hunted more or less". A 1919 report shows there were 26 Black-tailed bear and 11 White-tailed bear harvested by hunters on the Tonto Forest. I might add that that is the most white-tailed bear that were ever harvested there.

In 1923 the Wildlife Report shows 50 mountain sheep on the Coronado National Forest, 8 on the Tonto and 150 on the Lincoln. In the same year over 1/10 of all National Forest lands or 2,241,644 acres, were in game preserves.

In 1927, a Forest Guard hazed a bighorn sheep ram into the deer-proof fence at Big Springs on the North Kaibab and caught him. He was kept in the Ryan Station barn for 3 days, then released. When last seen he was going up Warm Springs draw toward Jacobs Lake.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS In 1930 there were 420 sheep reported for the Region. In 1940 there were 270 reported: Coronado, 70; Crook, 15; Kaibab, 30; Tonto, 100; Jarnado, 35; Lincoln, 20; and Sandia, 3. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish secured transplant stock from Banff, Alberta, Canada. Three sheep were secured in 1939, three in 1940, and three in 1941, and released on the Sandia Mountains. The Sandia herd was provided some fine trophy ram hunting; 18 sheep for transplanting into the Gila, and thousands of hours of enjoyment for those who have just observed or photographed these fine game animals. The harvest has been 18 legal rams taken during 4 seasons.

The San Andres National Wildlife Refuge was approved for establishment by the New Mexico Game Commission in 1939, but the Presidential proclamation which established it was not issued until 1941. The creation of the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge removed 23 thousand acres of the Jarnado Experimental Range from Forest Service administration. This area included most of th.e big- horn sheep range in this part of New Mexico so far as the Forest Service was concerned.

By 1960 the reported number of bighorn sheep on a11 Forests in the Region was down to 200, but in 1965 the number reported was up to 233, thanks to the reintroduction of bighorn into two areas by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. In 1964 and 1965, 28 sheep were transplanted on the Gila National Forest and 15 were transplanted on the Santa Fe National Forest in 1965.

The authenticity of the Forest Service records on bighorn sheep numbers may perhaps be questioned, but the fact that bighorn sheep numbers have decreased on National Forest lands is unquestionable. This decrease cannot be accounted for by legal hunting. Habitat conditions brought about by climatic changes or through competition by domestic livestock or other wildlife, and by the influences of man's activities, are the most logical causes. I am not sure anyone can pin- point the reason for the decline, but I do believe we have enough talent and know- how so that we can do something about it.

Dr. Loren Potter and John Krenetsky of the University of New Mexico Biology Department have recently completed a study which culminated research studies started in 1940 by the Forest service on grazed and ungrazed plots in the various vegetation types. The results of the study provide some implications involved in grazing use of rangeland, and when such studies are tied to the amount of forage produced and removed by foraging animals on the grazed plots, we will be able to unravel some of the effects of grazing use.

The following polygraphs depict results obtained in 1940 as compared to results measured in the same manner in 1963 and 1964. The Canfield Line intercept method was used to obtain the information.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS In the grassland plots under protection, grasses tripled, and on the grazed plots the grass density increased somewhat less. The increases in forbs and decreases in browse were about equal under protection and under grazing.

In Desert grassla~dplots, both grasses and total cover increased. Outstanding was the decrease in forb cover, especially in the protected plots. Browse decreased slightly under protection while it increased slightly under grazing.

In Sagebrush plots, all growth forms decreased under both the protection and grazed treatments. This study was for only 10 years, 1953 to 1963. The serious drought and insect damage observed in this general area in 1956 and 1957 may be a possible explanation for this unusual condition.

In Pinyon-juniper plots grass cover increased nearly three-fold under protection and only slightly more than two-fold under grazing. While forbs decreased under protection, they increased under grazing. Browse decreased under both treatments.

In the Ponderosa pine plots the grass cover under protection increased more than in any other type. It increased five-fold on the protected plots and one-third on the grazed plots. Forbs decreased under both treatments. Ponderosa pine increased in the protected plots, but decreased in the grazed plots. This indicates the sensitivity of Ponderosa pine to grazing pressure. Browse plants increased under both treatments, but the increase was greatest in the protected plots.

In the Aspen-fir plots, grass cover increased 22 fold under protection which was nearly three times greater than on the grazed plots. Forbs and browse have increased enough in the grazed plots so that total ground cover was about the same under the two treatments.

The first conclusion we can reach from this 23 year study is that the ground cover in all vegetation types on both grazed and ungrazed plots has improved from 1940 to the present with grasses constituting the major increase. Grasses increased more in the protected plots than in the grazed plots. The greatest increase in forbs was in the grazed pinyon-juniper, and the grazed and ungrazed aspen. Browse increases were greatest in the grazed pinyon-juniper, the protected Ponderosa pine, and both the protected and unprotected aspen types. There was little change in the floristic composition of any of the plots.

Studies such as these will be of great value in helping to determine future livestock management practices and to obtain desired results in improving wildlife ranges. The time is long past due, but still not too late for wildlife researchers, wildlife managers, and land administering agencies to make a determination of the areas that are desirable for establishment or perpetuation of bighorn sheep, and set our management goals for these areas in such a way that they will be enhanced for bighorn sheep. This will require the help and advice of alot of people; research to fill in missing links; revegetation to provide the desirable forage; good land administration of the uses of the area; and possibly mose important of all is a comprehensive plan that will insure that all facets of the plan are carried out, and the area is used only in a manner that is conducive to bighorn sheep habitation.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS We in the Forest Service are ready and willing to cooperate and participate in a program to improve the status of bighorn sheep in accordance with multiple use practices of the Southwestern Region of the Forest Service.

(A slide series was shown of bighorn sheep and their habitat on the National Forests of the Southwestern Region. )

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS I:: G RASSLAND

PROTECTED GRAZED

DESERT GRASSLAND rz5

PROTECTED GRAZED

SAG EBRUSH

PROTECTED GRAZED

Fig. 1. Polygraphs of grassland and sagebrush types indicating actudl ground cover of grasses (G), forbs (F), browse (B), and total (T), Dotted lines represent initial coverage in 1939-40, solid lines the coverage in 1963-64,

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRkdC3!XTIONS G" 25 G" 25 PINYON-JUNIPE R - 20 -20

PROTECTED GRAZED

-10

50 40 30 I I F TJ I I a o!s 110 1.5 2.0 25

20- 20-

30- 30-

40- 40-

50- 50-

525 PONDEROSA PINE -20

PROTECTED GRAZED

10

10-

20-

30-

40-

50-

ASPEN t :: PROTECrED GRAZED

Fig. 2. Polygraphs of woodland and forest types indicating actual ground cover of grasses (G), forbs (F), browse (B), and total (T). Dotted lines represent initial. coverage in 1939-40, solid lines the coverage in 1963-64.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANACTIONS A PROPOSED DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP RANGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Mayo W. Call Bureau of Land Management Salt Lake City, Utah

My primary purpose in attending the Desert Bighorn Council this year is to present a plan for a range enhancement and development project for desert bighorn sheep (his canadensis nelsoni) and to solicit your views and comments concerning this proposed work.

Mr. Lanny Wilson presented a paper today informing you of what we presently know concerning the status of the desert bighorn in Utah, so I will go immediately into the details of the proposed project.

First, let me show you three or four slides depicting the general project area (slides were shown of map and general habitat).

The area involved consists primarily of summer and fall range and contains some dense stands of pinon-juniper (Pinus sp.-Juniperus sp.). The sheep spend consider- able time around the mesa edges, but little time within the pinon-juniper. They do not seem to like to inhabit these densely vegetated areas where vision is limited, especially since ticks in their ears frequently reduce their auditory sense.

The bighorns are largely grass eaters and I understand that certain burned areas on the Desert Game Range, converted to a grassland type, have been quite heavily utilized by bighorns. We propose to convert pinon-juniper areas to grasslands on the sheep's summer range in Utah. We are contemplating chaining 7,000 to 8,000 acres, aerial seeding to preferred grasses, then back-chaining to cover the seed. The "pits" produced when juniper are torn from the ground will be hand planted with a variety of browse species. The tentative seed mixture worked out with Perry Plummer, Range Specialist, Great Basin Experimental Station, U. S. Forest Service, Ephraim, Utah, as shown below, is subject to change based on subsequent desert bighorn sheep food preference findings, availabiliky, and cost of seed, and establishment and adaptability of various species determined by initial test trial plots on both mesa plateaus.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Species Pounds Cost per Cost per Per Acre Lb Acre Fairway crested wheatgrass (~~ro~~roncristata) Intermediate wheatgrass (Agropyron intermedium) Pubescent wheatgrass (Agropyron trichophorum) Bluestem wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii) Southern smooth brome (Brornus inermis) Russian wildrye (Elymus junceus) Fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) Big sagebrush (Arternesia tridentata) Black sagebrush (Artemesia nova) Desert Bitterbrush (Purshia nlanulosa) Alfalfa (Medicago sp. ) Small burnet (Sanquisobra minor)

In line with this proposal we intend to set up rain guages at the highest and lowest elevations on both plateaus next week and also plan to establish at least one 1-acre trial plot next fall on each of the proposed sites.

Tentative project costs prepared by the Utah Fish and Game Department, in collabora- tion with the Bureau of Land Management, are as follows:

Summary - Range Development

Chaining (twice-over) 8,700 acres @ $6/A Seed mixture 8,700 acres @ $8.161~ Aerial broadcasting 8,700 acres @ $.50/A (fixed wing aircraft) Water developments 14 springs @ $500 and 10 water catchments @ $1,000 17,000 Paddock construction (6 mi. - 8 ft. fence and 3 corral traps @ $500/trap) Access roads (7.5 miles)

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS The expected total project cost will approach $180,000 which will be distributed over about a five year period on a 50-50 basis between the Bureau of Land Management and the Utah Fish and Game Department. The present expected cost is somewhat reduced from what was originally planned. Seed costs for the project, including aerial broadcasting, approach $75,000. I am sure that further analysis of this particular expense will be needed. You will note that we have included about 24 water developments within or adjacent to the project sites. Frequently water developments alone are an extremely important item in obtaining good bighorn sheep distribution throughout the year.

The access roads needed to move the necessary equipment for accomplishing the project will be built only to the standards ne,cessary for the movement of the equipment. We then plan to block off the road at a point which will restrict all public access to the areas and leave the bighorns in comparative isolation. Because of the animal's shy disposition and apparent inclination to remain secluded, we feel that this will be necessary. You will note that a paddock will be constructed as part of the project in which to place animals for bio- logical and behavior studies. This paddock will include portions of both summer and winter range. Reproductive behavior, productivity, food habits, watering habits, and other items will be investigated by personnel of the Utah Fish and Game Department. In future years, offspring produced within the paddock may be used for planting other suitable areas that do not presently contain sheep.

We feel that we need more information on the effect of livestock on bighorns, both from the competition standpoint and as a disturbance factor. In isolated instances we have noted bighorn sheep, frequently as individuals, in company with cattle, domestic sheep, goats, deer, burros, and other big game animals. But there is some evidence that bighorn sheep prefer to remain at a distance from most large animals. Bighorns observed in southern Utah have varied from extremely curious to very frightened. I would like to hear your comments on the effect of dual inhabitation of bighorn ranges by both domestic livestock and bighorn sheep.

One of the project sites has been virtually inaccessible to domestic livestock over the years and the other has had only light cattle grazing. We wonder what the effect would be on the bighorns if we attempted to manage the project areas for both cattle and bighorns. We would appreciate your views to help us arrive at an appropriate management decision in this regard. Let me emphasize that this project is still largely in the proposal stage. We have just recently begun to analyze the project for a11 benefits to determine if the money would be well spent. I think the principles involved are well founded, but we must carefully consider all facets of the proposal and be prepared to make changes where appropriate. Practically all desert bighorn sheep in Utah reside on lands administered by the BLM, and we feel some responsibility for enhancing the habitat and perpetuating the species. This responsibility is broadly defined as one of our objectives under the new Multiple Use Act.

I have appreciated being with you this morning and would appreciate any questions, comments, or suggestions which you might have.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS RESEARCH AND FUTURE REHABILITATION OF THE BIGHORN SHEEP IN SOUTHEASTERN UTAH

Lanny 0. Wilson Utah State University Logan, Utah

In June 1965, the first investigation of the bighorn sheep (Ovis- canadensis) in southeastern Utah was undertaken. The primary study area ts located in the vicinity of Lake Powell on the Colorado River; more specifically, on lands in and around Fry Canyon, San Juan County, Utah. The prtmary objectives of the research are:

1 To determine the species, distribution and number of bighorn sheep in suitable habitats of White, Fry, Red and Dark Canyons.

2 To determine the condition of the range utilized by the bighorn sheep. 3. To determine factors affecting productivity of the bighorn sheep population.

4 To deter.mine the food preferences, daily and seasonal movements of the bighorn sheep.

The bighorn sheep has long been a major source of food for Indians who once lived in the canyon lands and mesas along the Colorado River. Rarely is a petroglyph found th'at does not show bighorn sheep with Indians shooting arrows at them, or pictures depicting their habits. Many of the petroglyphs showing sheep are thought to be made before the time of Christ.

Buechner (1960. The Bighorn Sheep in the United States, Its Past, Present, and Future Wildlife Monographs 4:170), believes that along the Colorado River in Utah or Arizona, the Rocky Mountain bighorn (&is canadensis canadensis) and the Desert Bighorn (Ovis- canadensis nelsoni) subspecies meet. Most measurements of skulls collected along the Colorado River in the study area are more nearly the measurements of the desert bighorn. The morphological characteristics also favor the desert bighorn sheep.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS As of this date, no complete census has been made in the study area, but 53 different bighorn sheep were sighted in a four day period in 1965. From questionnaires to personnel working in the National Parks, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and Fish and Game Departments, sightings of bighorns just south of Moab, Utah, to Page, Arizona along the Colorado River have been made in the past year. This encompasses an area of roughly 7,200 square miles. Certainly, at one time the range of the bighorn sheep was much more .extensive than now,as indicated from interviews with early settlers and historical data.

Illegal hunting appears to have been the biggest decimating factor of the bighorn sheep in recent years. In 1946 a local rancher saw a band of 11 Navajo Indians leaving White Canyon, the heart of the study area, with what he estimated to be 70 to 80 bighorn sheep hides. No hunting by Indians has been noted since the late 1950's. With the completion of the Glen Canyon Dam, the Indians can no longer cross the Colorado River. In the latter part of the 1940's and until 1961, uranium prospectors intensified mining activities in the canyons and mesas along the Colorado River. Evidence of bighorn sheep:.illegaf kills have been found on several occasions. A newspaper in 1950 noted an estimated 10,000 prospectors in San Juan, County, Utah. Several uranium mines still operate within the boundary of the study area.

Predation by coyotes and bobcats does not appear to be an important decimating factor at this time.

Parasite analysis from fecal determinations has proved almost completely negative. No cestode proglottids, or effs, roundworm effs or larva, intestinal nematodes, lungworms, coccidial oocysts or protozoan cysts were found in 40 of 45 samples from 45 different bighorn sheep. The following four intestinal parasites were found: two coccidia (Eimeria pallida, Eimeria grandulosa); a tapeworm (Wyomina tetoni); and one nematode (Skrjabinema 2.). None of these parasites we're found in numbers that would be a serious threat to the condition and welfare of the host.

Most of the fecal samples collected contained a high percentage of clay. Bighorns have been observed eating large amounts of soil in various areas and samples of the soil are being analyzed at this time. It has been determined that much of the area is deficient in phosphorous and iodine. It might be to satisfy the needs for one of these deficient minerals that the bighorns consume clay.

In March 1966, a bighorn ewe was collected and taken to Colorado State University for a complete necropsy. At this time a complete report has not been received, but no evidence of internal or external parasitic organisms was noted in the gross examination. The ewe was nine years of age and had a fetus which appeared normal and was estimated to be about four months old. Evidence that the ewe had pneumonia at an earlier period was noted. Domestic cattle graze the lower level country, however. Domestic sheep are not known to have grazed the study area. This is probably one reason so few parasites have been found.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS For the most part, bighorns stay on the higher mesas during the summer since their range is restricted to areas of springs or large natural tanks.

During the winter the sheep move down to the lower mesas and canyons which more than triples their summer range. They tend to utilize primarily common grasses and forbs, but do browse a great deal. Important plants are: blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), wild-rye (Elymus salinus), Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), globemallow (Sphaeralcea sp.), Russian thistle (Salsola -kali), single-leaf ash (Fraxinus anomala), and service-berry (Amelanchier sp.).

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS STATUS OF TRANSPLANTED BIGHORNS IN TEXAS 1966

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

Since the release of the first desert bighorn sheep (his- canadensis nelsoni) in 1957, the program for restoring the sheep to Texas has progressed slowly. It was found to be extremely difficult to trap and transport the sheep from the Kofa Game Range of Arizona to the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area in the Trans-Pecos Region of Texas.

The animals were trapped during the hottest part of the summer, which resulted in excessive losses during the handling and transporting to the 427-acre enclosure,

The final phase of the trapping program began in June 1959, and was terminated the following month. During this period three rams, including a lamb, and four ewes were trapped and moved to Texas.

One ram from the 1958 trap-year and one ewe from the 1959 trap-year were found dead during the late summer and early fall of 1959. At the end of 1959, the tally of sheep remaining in the holding pasture was nine (four rams and five ewes). During June of 1960, two ewes of the original 1957 brood stock died. One ram also died in June. He was either from the 1958 or 1959 catches. In June 1961, one ewe was found dead, In September, a ram from the 1958 or 1959 brood stock was observed to have a heavy infestation of screw worms in his nose. He was found dead a short time later. The cause of death of the other animals is unknown,

On November 12, 1965, a male lamb was observed in a weakened condition at the watering trough in the northwest corner of the enclosure. The lamb was caught the following day for shipment to Texas A and M University for diagnosis of his illness. The lamb died in route. Dr. R. M. Robinson of the Department of Veterinary Pathology performed a necropsy on the animal and tests indicated that the animal died of Bluetongue.

In March 1966, the remains of one adult ewe and one yearling ram were found. They had been dead approximately 18 months. The causes of death are unknown.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS The first reproduction was in 1960, when three lambs were born. Reproduction since 1960 is as follows: three lambs in 1961, four lambs in 1962, six lambs in 1963, three lambs in 1964, five lambs in 1965, and at the present four lambs have been observed in the enclosure for the 1966 lambing season. At the present time there should be 12 rams, 9 ewes, 2 yearling rams, 2 yearling ewes, and 4 lambs in the enclosure for a total of 29 sheep.

Two permanent watering sites are provided for the sheep. One site is a rock- header dam with a sheet iron canopy, and the other is a small concrete watering trough connected to a 2600 gallon metal tank. A float valve is used in the trough to regulate the water level. In January 1966, after the death of the lamb from Bluetongue, the rock-header dam was drained dry and the concrete water trough was cleaned and refilled in an attempt to prevent any spread of disease. A; the present time the only permanent watering site provided for the sheep is the con- crete trough.

A study to determine the utilization of the watering sites by the bighorn sheep and their watering habits in the enclosure was initiated in August 1963. The study was set up so that the watering sites could be watched during the daylight hours for three-day periods. The observations were conducted during the periods of high temperatures in summer and during critical vegetative periods in late winter, Results of these studies indicate that during the hot dry periods the sheep water at least every other day and usually between 10:OO AM and 4:00 PM. Track counts around watering sites indicate that the sheep watered very little at night.

During a three day period in March 1966, no sheep were observed to water at the site. Upon making a foot survey of the enclosure several temporary natural water holes were located. It is felt that the sheep were using these instead of the permanent water sites.

Although the sheep did not use the available permanent watering sites during periods of wet weather, it is necess.ary to have water available for the sheep during hot, dry periods.

A study to determine the amount of available vegetation for the sheep in the holding pasture was initiated in 1965. The carrying capacity of the enclosure will then be determined.

The meter-square-plot clipping method is being used to determine the amount of air-dry forage available in the pasture. In conjunction with the meter-square- plot method, the square-foot-method is being used to determine composition and density of the grasses.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS A belt transect method is being used to determine density and composition of the browse species in the enclosure. The dominant browse species are recorded and checked to determine the utilization of the plants by the sheep.

Plans for the futur.e will be based on the reproduction of the sheep and the number of animals the enclosure will support. If full production is reached, an annual release of LO to 15 sheep will be possi le.

b

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS CENSUS AND COLLECTIONS OF EXOTIC UNGULATES ON, THE HEARST RANCH

Warren E. Kelly Fort Ord Complex - U. S. Army Hunter Liggett Military Reservation Jolon, California

William Randolph Hearst, who was responsible for construction of the famous Hearst Castle in San Luis Obispo County, California, collected and developed one of the finest zoos on the west coast. Both carnivores and ruminants from many parts of the world were on exhibit.

During the 19301s,many ruminants escaped when gates were left open. Species that escaped included elk (Cervus canadensis), Barbary sheep (hotragus lervia) , tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus), sambar deer (cervus unicolor), and fallow deer (Dama-- dama). The number of animals that were allowed to escape,is not known but recent census figures indicate populations of approximately 700 Barbary sheep and 300 tahr.

The California Department of Fish and Game has expressed concern over the possi- bility of the exotic big game, especially the Barbary sheep, emigrating and becoming established in surrounding areas, and the resulting competition that could exist with native deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and livestock; Since Hunter Liggett Military Reservation is adjacent to the Hearst Ranch, Army officials were interested in any movement of exotics to the military reservation.

On April 19-20, 1965, five helicopter flights of two hours duration were taken over the Hearst Ranch and surrounding areas for the purpose of determining distribution and population estimates of exotic ungulates. An Army Bell Uhib helicopter was used for the survey. This machine will carry nine persons including pilot and copilot. On all flights there were six to eight persons aboard, consequently, excellent coverage could be given the areas flown. The passenger whose visibility was most limited acted as recorder.

The flights produced good results on observations of Barbary sheep, but no tahr were found, although several passes were made over their home range. The total number of animals counted are as follows: elk 33; zebra 12; wild pig (Sus- scrofa) 28; feral goats 6; Barbary sheep 208.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTCONS One helicopter flight, a single group of Barbary sheep was observed that contained an estimated 100 animals and I am sure this was a conservative estimate. The helicopter flights proved that more information is needed to be obtained on these animals. Permission was granted to the California Department of Fish and Game by the Hearst Ranch to make collections of Barbary sheep and tahr. Deer and wild pigs were also to be collected for a comparative disease and food habits study.

During the collection 10 Barbary, 3 tahr, 10 deer and 12 wild pigs were taken. The above mentioned collections were made over a five day period from November 6 to 10, 1965. Personnel from the California Department of Fish and Game Disease Laboratory was present to select the animals to be collected and take the necessary sample collections of tissues, organs, and rumen contents for analysis. All animals were removed intact from the field to the ranch slaughter house, where a complete autopsy was accomplished. Plants were also gathered and preserved to assist in food habits studies.

Deer that were collected carried large numbers of external parasites in the form of ticks, lice, and fleas. The wild pigs also had these same parasites but to a lesser degree. No external parasites were found on the Barbary sheep or tahr although they occupy nearly the same range as the deer and pigs.

Examinations for internal parasites revealed large numbers of stomach worms in the Barbary sheep but only small infestations in the tahr and deer. This stomach worm is also found in domestic sheep and cattle in this part of California. Laboratory technicians of the California Department of Fish and Game presented the thought that large infestations of stomach worms could be a limiting factor on Barbary sheep. N.1 of the animals collected were tested for Tuberculosis which proved negative.

Table 1 discloses findings of the food habits of blacktail deer, Barbary sheep, and tahr as determined by rurnen analysis. The findings were accomplished by personnel of the California Department of Fish and Game Disease and Food Habits Laboratory, located at Sacramento, California.

Table 1. Forage class utilization expressed in volume per cent for ungulates collected on the Hearst Ranch, November 1965.

7 Number Forage Class Species Animals Collected Browse Forbs Grass

Deer 10 46.8 51.7 1.5

Barbary sheep 10 0.2 0.1 99.7

Tahr 3 0.3 12.0 87.7

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Surveys both from the air and on the ground indicated only one instance where Barbary sheep had established a population outside the Hearst Ranch. A group of 22 Barbary sheep was observed near Vulture Rock about 12 miles east of the castle. Four more Barbary sheep were noticed off the ranch, two on the Los Padres National Forest and two in Hunter Liggett Military Reservation. One possible explanation for the failure of these animals to establish populations elsewhere is their unprotected status under California Department of Fish and Game Regulations. The animals seen near Vulture Rock were in a remote area with controlled access which offers protection similar to the Hearst Ranch.

During the first part of May 1965, another collection of Barbary sheep, deer and pigs is planned on the Hearst Ranch to gather additional data.

More helicopter flights are also scheduled for this spring. Where.as last year's flights were mainly over the Hearst Ranch, this year we will attempt to locate animals that emigrated to other areas.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS COMPARISON OF MULE DEER AND DESERT BIGHORN SEASONAL FOOD HABITS

Jim Yoakum Bureau of Land Management Reno, Nevada

Abstract: A total of nine mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and nine desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) rumen samples were collected and analyzed. The samples were obtained from July to November over a six year period on the Desert Game Range, Nevada. Results were compared with forage composition transects obtained by the step-point method on the same ranges. Forage preference indices were computed indicating a bighorn sheep preference index of 1.76 for grass, .4 for forbs, and .6 for browse; whereas deer had a preference index of 1.65 for browse, 1.53 for forbs, and 0.0 for grass. These data indicate there was not a major degree of competition for forage classes between bighorn sheep and deer on the study area from July to November.

INTRODUCTION

Mule deer and desert bighorn sheep inhabit many of the same areas on the Desert Game Range in Nevada. Both species forage on grass, forbs, and browse, however, a paramount question is: to what degree does each animal species utilize the various forage classes? This study was accomplished to supply additional biological factual knowledge to this question.

A review of literature discloses a divergence of findings relative to the subject of deer-bighorn food competition. Such authors as Halloran (1944: 366) and Halloran and Kennedy (1949:417), state competition is probably a problem. Other workers such as Cowan (1947:226) and McCullough and Schneegas (1966:81) refer to competition as of minor importance.

Since mule deer and bighorns have been collected 6n the Desert Game Range for a period of six years, it was decided that a direct comparison of food habits could be made from these collections. Consequently, rumen samples from nine adult mule deer and nine adult bighorns obtained from July to November were analyzed and compared. All specimens were collected from the same ranges from 1958 to 1963.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS METHODS

Animal Collections: Rumen samples for bighorn sheep were procured during regular hunting seasons. Sportsmen obtained the samples and presented them to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife checking station on the Desert Game Range. Deer stomach samples were obtained during a deer collection and study program conducted by personnel of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

Rumen Analyses: Rumen samples were first washed in a fine-meshed sieve (196 openings per square inch) and placed in a white enamel pan. Examination was made with a wide field, parfocal, dissecting binocular microscope using 9x and 7x-2x objectives. The food items were segregated and identified. Then a visual estimate was made of percentage composition of items found in the sample. Results were recorded on an analysis card in terms of volume percentage of each food item in the rumen, and summarized by the aggregate percentage method (Martin, Gensch and Brown 1946).

Range Forage Composition: For the months the animals were collected, deer and bighorn utilized in common the following two vegetative types: 9 Juniper-pinon- sagebrush-galleta and 16 Joshua-blackbrush-brome. These types were designated according to Stoddard and Smith's (1955:165) system for making range management maps. The two vegetative types correspond respectively with the Blackbrush community and the Juniper-pinyon community classified and described by Bradley (1946:49, 52).

An examination of the vegetative types was made by means of the step-point method (Levy and Madden, 1933; Evans and Love, 1957). In this method the observer paces through a type and records each hit as touched by a mark on his boot toe. Ten transects totaling 1,000 hits were made for each vegetative type during this study. The hits were recorded according to plant species in the grass, forb, or browse forage classes, as well as non-vegetation hits such as bare-ground, rock, and litter.

These data were then converted to percent cover by the formula:

Number of times a species or bare area is hit = % cover Total number of hits recorded

FINDINGS

Food Habits: Table 1 summarizes the rumen analyses in volume percent and frequency of occurrence for both deer and bighorns. Deer utilized 67% browse, 23% forbs, and only trace quantities of grass. Bighorns consumed 65% grass, 6% forbs, and 29% browse. Some browse species, such as big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata) , mahogany (Cercocarpus sp. ) , -Apache plume (~owinia-stansbugiana) , saltbrush (Atriplex canescens), and wild lilac (Ceanothus ~re~~ii)were utilized . - V, by both animals: These browse plants were high'in eithef ;ol;me and/or frequency percent for both foragers, although more shrub-species were utilized to a lesser degree. Grass appeared in half of the deer samples and all of the bighorn collections. Forbs were used a great deal more by deer than bighorns.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Range Forage Composition: A total of 2,000 toe-point readings were taken of which 1,000 were obtained in each of the two vegetative types. The percent vegetative (average 27) to non-vegetative production (average 73) was almost the same for both types (range 25-30 and 70-75). The 9 Juniper-pinon-sagebrush- galleta type produced five percent more browse than the 16 Joshua-blackbrush- brome type. For both types the average vegetative production was 10% grass, 4% forbs, and 13% browse. These forage production percentages were computed to determine the average percent of the total vegetative production which was 37% grass, 15% forbs, and 48% browse. Table 2 reveals that the dominant forage was browse, grass was next, and forbs were the least abundant.

DISCUSSION

From the data in Table 3 some important facts concerning forage preferences by deer and bighorns can be noted. Even though this study area is predominantly desert shrub, bighorns showed a preference index of 1.76 for grass, 0.4 for forbs, and .6 for browse. Deer, however, had a preference index of 1.65 for browse, 1.53 for forbs, and 0.0 for grass. There appears to be no serious problem of competition for browse species even though deer and bighorns utilize a number of shrubs in common. This assumption is based upon the premise that the range is a desert shrub type and browse is abundant.

Nine rumen samples may appear to be a small collection, however, it is interesting to note that findings for this study are comparable to B. Browning's (unpublished data) larger collection of 76 bighorn and 36 deer stomach samples collected on the same and adjacent ranges throughout each month of the year over a period of 15 years. Browning's data reveals the following: bighorns consumed 80% grass, 3% forbs, and 17% browse, deer utilized 88% browse, 7% forbs, and 5% grass.

No attempt was made to determine nutritional values for plant species although it would be highly desirable to accomplish this at some future date in'order to more accurately assess comparisons of food habits. There is definitely a need for additional collections from December to June in order to incorporate such findings with this study and determine the total year-long relationship of each animal's food habits to the range.

It appears from this study that there is only a minor degree of forage competition between deer and bighorns from July to November on the Desert Game Range. Deer are predominantly browsers, and utilize forbs and grass to a much lesser degree. Bighorns are mainly grazers of graminae, and use forbs and browse as supple- mentary food items. Just as in thesavannahs of Africa where there is an abundance of wild ungulate species concurrently using forage classes effectively it seems as though deer and bighorns can fulfill each species' ecological niche of consuming different forage classes on a range in good condition producing thrifty vegetation.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is grateful to personnel of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife at the Desert Game Range, Nevada, for cooperation in obtaining the rumen samples. The stomach analysis work was started by Howard R. Leach and Bruce Me Browning and completed by Browning and Walter Stienecker, California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Investigation Laboratory, Sacramento, California.

LITI3RATURE CITED

Bradley, W. G. 1964. The vegetation of the Desert Game Range with special reference to the desert bighorn. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 8:43-67.

Cowan, I. M. 1947. Range competition between mule deer, bighorn sheep, and elk in Jasper Park, Alberta. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. Confer. 12:223-227.

Evans, R. A. and R. M. Love. 1957. The step-point method of sampling--a practical tool in range research. J. Range Magmt. 10:208-212.

Halloran, A. F. 1944. History and present status of bighorns in south- central New Mexico. J. of Mammal. 25:364-367.

Halloran, A. F. and C. Kennedy. 1949. Bighorn-deer food relations in southern New Mexico. J. Wildl. Mangt. 13:417-19).

Levey, E. B. and E. A. Madden. 1933. The point method of pasture analysis. New Zealand J. Agr. 46:267-279.

Martin, A. C., R. He Gensch, and C. P. Brown. 1946. Alternate methods in upland game bird food analysis. J. Wildl. Mangt. 10~8-12.

McCullough, D. Re and E. Re Schneegas. 1966. Winter observations on the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Calif. Fish & Game. 52(2):68-84).

Stoddart, L. A. and A. Dm Smith. 1955. Range management. McGraw-Hill Book Co. N. Ye 433 p. 69

Table 1. Seasonal food habits of nine adult deer and nine adult bighorns collected on the Desert Game Range.

PLANT I DEER BIGHORN SHEEP Scientific Name Frequency Volume ( Frequency I Percent Percent 4Percent Percent Gramineae: (Unidentified) Oryzopsis hymenoides Cndian ricegrass Teedlegrass

TOTAL GMSS ~

Forbs : (~nidentified) Lesquerella sp. 3ladder-pod Eriogonum sp. Jild buckwheat Chamaebatiaria millefolium Desert-sweet Penstemon sp. Beard- tongue -Yucca brevifolia Spanish bayonet TOTAL FORBS

Browse: (Unidentified) Prunus fasciculata Desert ahond --Cercocarpus --- intricatus Small-leaf mahogany Cercocarpus ledifoluis Desert mahogany --Cowania, stansburiana Apache plume Purshia tridentata Bitterbrush Ceanothus greggii Wild lilac Ribes sp. Currant -Rhus trilobata Squaw bush Phoradendron juniperinum Mistletoe Artemesia tridentata Big sagebrush Atriplex canescens Saltbush Amelanchier uthaensis Service-berry Euphorbia Fendleri Spurge Ephedra nevadensis Morman or Mexican 'Iiea Thamnosma montana Turpinetine-broom Pinus monophylla Pinon pine --Pinus edulus One-leaved pine Dalea sp. Indigo bush Abies sp. Fir Juniperus sp. Juniper Blackbrush Rabbitbrush

TOTAL BROWSE

* Trace - less than one percent

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Table 2. Percentage of plant composition on two vegetative types inhabited by fnule deer and bighorn sheep on the Desert Game ~an~e.

Grass Forbs Browse Won-Vegetation Vegetative Type No. Hits No. Hits No. Hits No. Hits %

9 Juniper-pinon- sagebrush-galleta

16 Joshua-blackbrush- brome

Average' percentage bverage Percent of Total Plant Production

Table 3. Preference indices of deer and bighorn sheep from July to November on the Desert Game Range, Nevada.

Deer Bighorn Sheep Forage Class Percent Volume % 1 Preference Percent I Volume % I Preference Vegetation I Rumen Index Vegetation Rumen Index

Grass 37 - - 0 37 65 1.76

Forbs 15 23 1.53 15 6 .4

Browse 48 77 1.65 48 29 .6

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS MULTIPLE USE COORDINATION ON THE SAN GORGON10 BIGHORN UNIT

Hatch Graham U.S. Forest Service San Bernardino, California

INTRODUCTION

The San Bernardino Forest Reserve was established in 1893. By the time the Forest Service Organic Administration Act was passed in 1897, efforts by local interests in San Bernardino County had resulted in the wording of that act to include, in addition to improving and protecting the Forest, the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flow. The greatest value of the San Bernardino National Forest at that time was to the water users downstream for citrus and other agricultural irrigation. And so it was that wood and water were the first two uses of all the national forests to be given statutory recognition. But Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief Forester of the Ilnited States, saw that to gain full public acceptance, the national forest system should be based on a fuller use: a wise use of all of the available resources. And it was with this concept of wise use that he coined the word ttconservation't.

MJLTIPLE USE DE'FINED

Since the very beginning the Forest Service has operated on a multiple use basis. In 1960 the Congress of the United States reaffirmed that direction by passing the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Much has been said about multiple use. It has been given many definitions. But as used in this Act it has only one definition and that is the legal definition given the term by Congress. In part the Act says, "The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to develop and aminister the renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the several products and services obtained therefrom. In *he administration of the national forests due consideration shall be given to the relative values of the various resources in particular areas. The establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are consistent with the purposes and provisions of this Act ."

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS It further says "As used in this Act the follow in^ terms have the following meanings. YultipAe lJse means: the management of all the various renewable resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in tile co~nbirlation that will best meet the needs of the American people; maliinq the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changin~needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less than all the resources; and harmonious and cooniinated manapment of the various resources ,and not necessarily the combination of uses that will ~ivethe greatest dollar return or the nreatest unit output.ll

So when I speak of Plultiple Use that is the definition of tilc term I usc. ?luch thou~hwent into the precise phrasing of.that definition and I tllink you will azree it says a lot, But anyone who is interested in n sin~leuse will lean pore heavily on certain ~hrasesthan others. 'i'he adw.inistrator wllo uses the multiple use concept cannot expect to please everyone in its practice. I think for the administrator the key word in the !+'ultiple Use iiefinition is l1judici~us~~. llqJudicious uset1 is ~uchlike Gifford Pincho t Is "wise usef1. Here a.nain this imylies judgment and your opinion and my opinion may vary with reqard to the degree of judg~nent that is applied in multiple use management. I can say, wc use our best judgment,

PROCEDURES IN APPLY INC FULTIPLE lJSE

Today I thought you would be interested in some of the processes we follow in p~1ttin.qthc Nultiple IJse principle into practice. Of course in National Forest operations there are, in addition to this Act, many other laws, Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, policy and procedures which are contained in the several volumes of the Forest Serfrice Manual. Following procedures in the Forest Service Ilanual, regional or sub-regional guides are prepared. These describe various In-oad planning zones with similar management problems. Por each of these zones there are general management directions and coordinating instructions which apply throughout the sub-region. An example of the kind of ,penera1 direction is this one for wildlife: "Protection of the habitat of scarce species will be given special consideration in a11 management activities .I1

Itrithin the framewc?rlt of these sub-regional guidcs cach District Ranger prepares a Multiple Use Plan. A F?ulti$e Use Plan expands upon the general manapmen t direction and coorclinat ing inst ructions giving specific direction and specific instructions for those zones which may be found on the individual Range District, This Kanqer District Multiple Use Plan is the guiding instrument referred to in the development of each functional plan whether it be a timber management plan, a recreation plan, a range management plan, or some other resource plan, An example of a wildlife plan is the biological

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS unit plan ~reyaredfor the San Gor~onioBighorn.

The San Clorgonio Bighorn Unit Plan is prepared within the framework of the sub-regional guides =and the Ranger District F!ultiple Use Plan. The procedures we followed in prevarin~the San Gorgonio 1Eighorn Unit Plan are similar to those used elsewhere in the California Region and described for the Inyo National Forest by Ed Schnee~ason Page 53 of the 1965 Transa'ctions of The Desert Bighorn Council. Our objectives for bighorn managcinent are also similar to those used on the Inyo National Forest.

It is not my intent to discuss the bioloLgy or ecology of the San Corgonio 13ighorn at this time. I do wish to relate to you some of the management problems and coordination that must be made in this area. The following is taken from a preliminary draft of our Habitat Management Plan.

A small herd of about 75 bighorn is located in the San Gorgonio blountain area. Little is known of the bighorn's requirements and behav ior in this area. bhat is known has been recorded here. A range survey of the habitat has been completed. The objectives and responsibilities of National Forest manage~llent are stated. The primary purpose of this plan is to give direction for the management of the bighorn's habitat. At the present time the most constructive direction is to resolve the problems presented by conflicting demands for use of the land, In the absence of positive knowledge a relatively conservative approach has been used. That is: the bighorn has been given priority over other uses where those uses could cause damage or loss of key portions of the bighorn range. This direction is in accord with the IJse Mana~en~ent Guide for the Southern California Sub-region and the Forest Servi ce Wanual ,

MJLTIPLE USE COORDINKl'ION I'JITII BIGIiOPJI PJNWGEMENT

In the plan ye discuss the coordination of bighorn management with other land uses.

'The high country, with its distinctive topography, vegetation, altitude, climate and location with respect to human population centers, is divided into two mana~enentunits: San Gorgonio Kilderness Unit and Barton Flat Upper Mill Creek unit. The bighorn management plan deals with both units in varying degrees. National Forest ownership now comprises 97% of the total area in the wilderness unit. The few remainin9 inholdings are either under Forest Service

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS option to be acquired by purchase within one year or scheduled for land exchange with State-acquired lands in the Heart Har State Park area. The San Gorgonio bighorn management unit includes 52% of the total area of wilderness. Any change in the status of the wilderness tllat would allow winter recreation development such as the proposed ski area will affect the northwest portion of the key summer xange as well as the management unit boundary to tile north. A mass encroachment into the unit such as this could adversely affect the bighnrn. Ilowever, it is now known whether the recreation use actually will be. detrimental if the key bed and lambing grounds remain undisturbed.

Timber

On the San Bernardino National Forest, the only tinlber cutting is for the removal of trees highly susceptible to insect attack and other infested, diseased or hazardous trees. It is believed Raywood Flats may require this sanitation treatment at some future date. A small sale of about 3 million board feet is all that is presently envisioned. Rigits-of-way and land adjust- ment problems must be overcome before any sale is prepared. Tire wilderness boundary is on the north edge of the timber sale. Ayproximately 24U acres would be in the bizhorn managment unit adjacent to a key area at Piiddle Fork

Other Wildlife

It should be anticipated that any resultant build-up of the deer herd cotdd create conflict with bighorn sheep management. The objective should be to hold the deer population in this case at a level compatible with the bighorn.

Re creation

A long relatively level bench is located between the Mill Creek Jumpoff and the ?Aiddle Fork Jumpoff. It is bisected by the headwaters of the East Fork of the South Fork of the Whitewater, an attractive perennial stream. On the southern edge of this benchland is a spot known as Raywood Flats. This name is often applied to the entire area. In addition to the perennial stream, the summer temperatures are cool (SOOO1 elev.) , a mature stand of Jeffrey pine provides shade and beauty, and the massive uplift of San Gorgoniols south face complete an ideal setting for a recreational development which can equal most in Southern California. The bench is flattest to the east of East Fork Creek and as the bench narrows between the San Gorgonio massif and a peak on the south, the eye is carried to the horizon at the edge of the bench and the obvious vista lying beyond. At the edge of the bench is the headwall of the

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Middle Fork of the Whitewater. This precipitous jumpoff drops over 1200 feet in less than a half-mile. To the east is a marvelous view of the desert lands of upper Coachella Valley and the Little San Bernardino Mountains. And it is at the rim of this jumpoff where the heaviest concentration of bighorn bed- grhunds was found. These bedgrounds are 1oca.ted up both sides of this rim and are seldom over 20 feet from the edge of the break. The obvious recreation potential of this area, the curious nature of man and the unique geography combine to pose a threat to this area of key bighorn habitat.

Yhile there is no direct evidence to show *.hat man1s presence as an occasional observer has proved detrimental to bighorn, it is reasonable to believe that the introduction of mass overnight camping immediately adjacent to the very boudoir of the animals, along with uncontrolled frolicking of children young and old, along the cliff's edge and through the bedgrounds of the sheep would prove to be beyond the tolerance of the bighorn.

The Forest recreation plan has designated 70 acres in the bighorn management unit for ca.mp and yicnic sites near the Middle Fork Jumpoff. Of this total, 15 acres are planned for development within 10 years, with the balance by the year 2000 to provide for 100,000 man-days use per year. Since this is an important bighorn key area any development plans should be preceded by studies to ascertain the best manner in which increased recreation use can be provided and at the same time insure adequate bedding and lambing areas for bigh6m. Pending such detailed study, campgrounds should be restricted to the area west of the East Fork Cabin and picnic ?rounds should not be developed nearer than 1/4 mile of the jumpoff.

Trans??ortat ion

A wilderness trail is to be constructed. It is to begin 1/4 mile west of the Middle Fork Jumpoff. This trail will intersect the jumpoff escarpment 1/2 mile north or 1000 feet above the main bighorn bedground. The trail should proceed up the south slope of South Ridge then should swing west of the Tarn to where it will join the San Gorgonio mountain trail. Every effort will be made to direct and inform the public using this trail of the bighorn present in the area.

A forest road will enter the bighorn ~nanagcmentunlit boundary for approximate- ly 3/4 mile and end 1/4 mile west of the Middle Fork key area. A jeep road now extends to the key area. and south alon~the rim to a. heliport which overlooks the jumpoff. An important problem may develor if visitors use this road in high numbers once it is open. This plan recornmends that vehicular access be terminated at least 1/4 mile from the key area boundary. A trail can be constructed from the end of the road to the jumpoff where a visitor information

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS overlook or vista point can be established to inform the people about the sheep and the human hazards of the eroding head wall. This overlook will be enclosed with an acceptable rustic fence or rock wall in keeping with the scenic values of the area. The key bedpround area immediately along the rim should then be closed to public use under Secretary of &riculture's Regulation U-6. The closure area should be flagged on the ground by the WilZdlife Biologist. This plan envisions an .average setback of about 50 feet.

Livestock use of the Nathier landing area is presently uncontrolled. A drift fence needs to be erected across the wash on the west boundary of the private land. Grazing on the National Forest is not permitted west of this line and trespass should be prevented,

Industrial mining activities in the North Fork, Middle Fork, East Fork and Mill Creek Canyons could conflict with the basic bighorn management needs if in the immediate vicinity of key areas. lie specific key areas outside the Wilderness shdlld be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry by the Forest Service.

CONCLUSION

These then, are our recommendations for multiple use coordination with bighorn. Concessions to bighorn protection may seem small to this group. But the recreationist sees an area capable of supplying over 50,000 man-days per year of high quality mountain recreation forfeited to provide for less tharl 120 sheep-days use per year. And there is little evidence than man's intrusion as a recreationist is, in fact, detrimental. On the contrary, much of the literature indicates bighorn display a great deal of tolerance to people if unharmed. So we must make decisions on judgment.

The above recommendations represent, in our judgment , the nos t harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, in the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people. We hope we have been judicious.

LITERATURE CITED Light, J. T. and H. Graham, 1966. San Gorgonio bighorn habitat management plan. Forest Service, San Bernardino. (Manuscript). Schneegas, E. R. 1965. A bighorn sheep habitat management plan. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 9:53-54. Schneegas, E. R. and H. Graham. 1964. A preliminary big game habitat management plan for bighorn sheep on the Inyo National Forest. Forest Service, Bishop, Calif., 42 pa (mimeo.).

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Fig. 1. The Raywood Flats Area. The proposals for multiple use coordination. (diagramatic)

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DENTAL ANOMALIES IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

We Glen Bradley and La Glenn Allred Department of Biological Science Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas

Abstract: Studies now in progress of the desert bighorn sheep (Ovis- canadensis nelsqni) skull collection from the Desert Game Range in Southern Nevada indicate a surprisingly large number of anomalies including deviations in the standard dent a1 formula. Deviations common in the population include vestigial upper canines and the absence of the first cheek tooth (second premolar) in adults. The incidence of these deviations are presented &d compared with other skull collections from populations in Ariz ma and California.

Various anomalies in big game animals have been of interest and studies by numerous biologists. his paper summarizes studies of dental anomalies in desert bighorn sheep from the Desert Game Range in southern Nevada (Deming, 1952; Allred and Bradley, 1965; and Allred -eta -ale 1966). These studies based on the largest sample of skulls available for study from a single population of -Ovis canadensis are compared with smaller samples from populations in California and Arizona.

We are indebted to the following individuals for permission to examine material in collections under their care: Charles G. Iiansen, Wildlife Biologist, and Baine Cater, Refuge b!anager of the Desert Game Range; Dwight Warren, Death Valley National Monument ; Rothwell Pa Broyles, Joshua Tree National Monumnt; Claude Lard, Refuge blanager, Kofa and Cabeza Prieta Game Ranges; and John F. Russo, Big Game Supervisor, and Gabby Blaser, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Jeff Seivers, Seivers Taxadermy. . Ken Giles and Ronald E. Engel of the U.S. Public Health Service provided facilities and equipment for x-raying selected skulls. Jerry Keller, Department of Biological Sciences, Nevada Southern University assisted in the examination of skulls from Arizona and California. James E. Deacon, Department of Biological Sciences, Nevada Southern University made suggestions and critically reviewed the manuscript.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS MATERIALS KID kETHODS The 260 skulls of -Ovis canadensis nelsoni used in this study (147 rams, 102 ewes and 11 lambs) from the Desert Ganle Range, in Clark and Lincoln counties in southern Nevada, were picked up by Game Range personnel, hunters and other interested parties on different areas of the Game Range and axe deposited in the Riology Museum, Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas. Smaller samples, obtained by similar methods from California, of the same subspecies were examined at Death Valley National Vonument and Joshua Tree National Monument. In addit ion, specimens of -Ovis canadens is mexicana from populations on the Cabeza-Prieta and Kofa Game Ranges on deposit at the Yuma office of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife were examined. This material, collected as pick-ups, was supplemnted by a series of mandibles from the Phoenix Office of the Arizona Came and Fish Department, as well as by private skull collections from the Phoenix area which were known to Arizona Game and Fish personnel. Locations within Arizona were not known when the sample at Phoenix was examined and since it does represent several areas within tile state, it is included as representative of s tate-wide populations.

This material, the bulk of which was obtained as pick-ups in the field but suppleinented by hunter kills, may he considered as a random and, as far as they include different age and sex groups, a representative sample of the respective populations. The sex of all skulls with the exception of lambs may be easily determined because of the extreme sexual dimorpnism in sheep. The age of each skull was determined by the horn ring technique employed by Cowan (1940), Murie (1944), and Brandborg (1955) and others.

Deviations in dental formula were recorded on data sheets and supplemented in some instances by photographs and x-rays. Numerous skulls were damaged, badly weathered or incomplete; therefore, data are not complete for each specimen examined. The sample size for each population and eadl ty~eof anomaly is given in all tables.

RESU LTS

Maxillary Canines

Maxi1 lary or supernumerary canines have been reported from several populations of bighorn sheep. Benson (1943) reported upper canines in three bighorn skulls out of a total of 303 examined, representing several populations and subspecies. Dalquest and I-loffmeister (1948) found six with upper canines in a sample of 37 skulls of -0. -c. canadensis from Nashington. Deming (1942) reported upper canines in four out of 11 lamb skulls, but found none in 35 adults, all 0. c. nelsoni from the Desert Game Kange. Allred and Bradley (1965) in thgir-s tmtheDesert Game Range population reported one adult ram skull with a vestigial upper canine from a series of 132 ram and 95 ewe

DE SERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS skulls examined. Allred et. al. (1966) examining additional material from the same population found three lamb and two ram skulls with upper canines from a total sample of 147 rams, 102 ewes and 11 lambs.

The incidence of upper canines in adult rams and ewes from the present study is given in Table 1. In the Game Range populations, represented by a large sample, 1.4 per cent of the adult rams and none of the ewes examined had upper canines. In the much smaller samples from California of the same subspecies 3.7 per cent of the rams and none of the ewes had upper canines. In the still smaller samples from Arizona of 0. c. mexicana 9.1 per cent of the adult rams ha3 maxillary canines. One of-the two ewes examined from the Cabeza Prieta Game Range had vestigial canines and represents the only ewe skull noted in the study with this anomaly.

It is readily apparent that this anomaly is rare in adult ewes being found in only 0.9 per cent of the combined samples. It would also appear that, on the basis of the limited samples from California and Arizona, upper canines are more prevalent in adult rams from these populations, especially in the populations of -O. 'c.- mexicana. Lamb skulls are not available from the Arizona and California populations. Three lamb skulls of the sample of 11 from the Desert Game Range had upper canines. The sex of these lamb skulls is not known. The nigher incidence of upper canines in lambs would suggest the possibility of bone growing over the canine or aveolus and concealing its presence in adults. Iillen present in adults, the canine is vestigial and projects only slightly from the surface of the maxilla or is missing and evident only by the empty aveolus. X-rays of several adult ram skulls have not revealed the presence of vestigial canines. One lamb skull which exhibits only one canine was x-rayed and found to have an aveolus on the opposite side which was concealed by bone, indicating that this problem should be studies further.

Absent Premolars.

Cowan (1940), and Ualquest and Iioffmeister (1948) indicate that in Ovis- canadensis, a complete set of cheek teeth are present by the age of four years. These findings were confirmed for 0. c. nelsoni on the Desert Game Range by Deming (1952) in his study of too& aevelopment in this population. Allred and Bradley (1965) found 17 per cent of the skulls of adults four years of age or over without a full complement of cheek teeth. They and Allred eta al. (1966) report that there is no evidence of the presence of the first cheek tooth (second premolar) in a significant number of adults. To our knowledge' this anomaly has not previously been reported in Ovis canadensis populations prior to our studies of the Desert Game Range populationP and we were therefore particularly pleased to examine skulls from other populations.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS The incidence of absent seoond premolars in adults is given in Table 2. Approximately 29 per cent of the Desert Game Range sample had one or more missing second premolars compared to 19 per cent in the Arizona and O per cent in the California samples. It would appear that the incidence is highest in Nevada populations and absent in California populations. However, not only are the California and Arizona samples inadequate but much of the skull material is incomplete. In the California sample 24 of the 29 skulls were without lower jaws and 87 of the 112 skulls represented in the Arizona sample are made up of lower jaws only, removpd from hunter kills at checking stations. Allred et. al. (1966) clearly indicate that this condition is far more prevalentin Te lower j aw, thereby indicating considerable bias in the Arizona and California samples.

Also considerable bias is present due to the extremely small number of ewe skulls in the samples from areas other than the Desert Game Range. 'The incidence of this particular anomaly is 12.5 per cent in rams and approximately 54 per cent in ewes in the Desert Game Range sample. In the Arizona sample largely represented by mandibles, the incidence in rams is approximately 20 per cent, considerably higher than in the Nevada sample. Without a larger sample, especially of ewes, it is difficult to estimate the incidence of this anomaly in the California and Arizona populations. Especially the absence or rarity of this condition cannot be adequately estimated for the California population from the present sample.

The number of absent second premolars in adults from the Desert Game Range is given in Table 3. There is a clear indication that second premolars are more commonly absent from the lower jaw in both sexes. All premolars were present in the upper jaws of rams. Approximately 4.7 per cent of the second premolars were absent in rams as compared to 28 per cent in ewes, clearly indicating that not only is this condition more prevalent in ewes but also there are more absent second premolars per animal in ewes than rams. The upper premolar was absent on:;both sides of the j aw in seven ewes of the 65 examined and the premolar was absent on both sides of the lower jaw in 16 ewes and six rams of the 65 ewes and 96 rams examined indicating that this condition is far more prevalent in ewes. In addition three ewes had both lower and one upper second premolar absent. No ewes had the full complement of second premolars absent.

The number of absent second premolars in the sample of -0. -c. mexicana from Arizona is given in Table 4. No premolars are absent in the upper jaw of either sex. However, absent have not been found in the upper jaws of rams and the sample of ewes is quite limited. Approximately 20 per cent of the second premolars are absent from the lower jaw in rams from Arizona. This is considerably higher than the 9.4 per cent found to be absent in -0. -c. nelsoni rams from the Desert Game Jlange and would suggest the possibility

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS that the incidence and frequency of missing premolars might be higher in 0. c. 0 - mexicana than in 0. c. nelsoni populations. 0 - DISCUSSION

Data have been presented clearly indicating that dental anomalies are common in the Nevada and Arizona populations of Desert Bighorn Sheep. Sapeniumerary canines have been reported in a number of big game animals and appear to be common in Ovis- canadensis. Our data suggest that the incidence may be higher in the more southern 0. c. mexicana than in the 0. c. nelsoni material we have examined. Rye1 (ly63ireports that in white-Faired deer (Odocoileus virginianus) this condition is more frequent in southern populations. We also suggest that x-ray be used to detect the presence of vestigial canines in bighorn sheep and possibly other big game animals because of the possibility of bone growing over and concealing the vestigial canine or its alveolus.

It is rather surprising that absent second premolars had not been reported before our studies of the populations from the Desert Game Range in Nevada. One of the major difficulties encountered in a comparison of dental anomalies between populations is the scarcity of bighorn skulls in museums. Usually when series have been available, investigators have used the material primarily for taxonomic purposes. The present study indicates the possibility of this anomaly being widespread in Qvis canadensis populations. Such deviations in dental formula are so intimately- related to the gross embryological patterns of the individual and are probably genetically d

LITERATURE CITED

Allred, L. G. and W.G. Bradley 1965. Necrosis and anomalies of the skull in desert bighorn sheep. Trans. Desert Bighorn Council : 75-81.

Allred, L.G. and L.R. Baker, and W.G. Bradley. 1966. Additional studies of anomalies of the skull in desert bighorn sheep. Trans. California- Nevada Section of the IVildlife Society, jl;40-47.

Benson, S. B. 1943. Occurence of upper canines in mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis). P Amer. Midl. Nat. 30 (3) : 786-789.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Brandborg, S. 1955. Life history and management of the mountain goat in Idaho. Idaho Dept. Fish and Game, Widl. Bull. 2, 142pp.

Cowan, I. M. 1940. Distribution and variation in the native sheep of North America. Amer. Midl. Nat., 24(3):505-580.

Dalquest, W. W. and D. F. Hof fmeister. 1948. Mountain sheep from the state of Washington in the collection of the University of Kansas. Kansas Aca. Scie. Trans., 51 (2) : 224-234.

Murie, A. 1944. The wolves of Mt. McKinley. United States. (Fauna of the National ParksoftheU.S., FaunaSeriesNo. 5, 238p.1U.S. Dept. Int. , Nat. Park Service, Washington. Ryel, L. A. 1963. The occurrence of certain anomalies in Michigan white- tailed deer. J. Mamm. 17(1) : 79-96.

Table 1. The incidence of maxillary canines in adult Ovis canadensis.

Locality No. examined Vo. with one or more upper canines Rams Ewes Total Rams Ewes Total

Nevada Desert Game Range

California Death Valley National Monument

Joshua Tree National Monument Total for California

Arizona Phoenix Collection

Cabeza Prieta and Kofa Game Range s

Total for Arizona

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS TABLE 2. The incidence of absent second premolars in adult -Ovis canadensis, 4 years of age or older.

No. with one or more absent Locality No. examined second premolars

Rams Ewes Total Rams Ewes Tot a1

Nevada Desert Game Ran ge

California* Death Valley National Monumnt

Joshua Tree National Monument

Total for California

Arizona Phoenix Collection (Sku1 1s)

Phoenix Collection (mandibles only) 87

Cabeza Priet a and Kofa Game Ran ge s 17 3 20

Total for Arizona 116 4 120 22

* 24 skulls from the California sample were missing lower jaws.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Table 3. The number of absent secdnd premolars in adult Ovis canadensis nelsoni from the Desert Game Range, Nevada

Upper Jaw Lower Jaw Rams Ewes Total Rams Ewes Total

No. of premolars 190 128 318 191 118 309 expected in sample

No. of absent premolars

Per cent of absent premolars

Table 4. The number of absent second premo.lars in adult Ovis canadensis mexicana from Arizona.

Upper Jaw Lower Jaw Rams Ewes Total Rams Ewes Total

No. of premolars expected in sample

No. of absent premolars

Per cent of absent premolars COMPARATIVE STUDY OF NECROSIS ASSOCIATED WITH TEETH IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

L. Glenn Allred and W. Glen Bradley Department of Biological Sciences Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas

Abstract: An examination of skulls of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis- canadensis nelsoni) from populations in Nevada, Arizona, and California reveal that bone destruction (osteolysis and osteonecrosis) of the dental arch and adjacent areas of the skull are prevalent in some populations. The highest incidence of this condition is found in the Nevada population from the Desert Game Range and the lowest in the Joshua Tree National Monument population. Samples of -0. c. mexicana from Arizona have an incidence higher than 2. 5. nelsoni in ~alTforniabut significantly lower than the Desert Game Range samples of -0. 2. nelsoni. The extent of bone damage is highest in the ~esertGame Range population and the lowest in the samples from California. The importance of this condition as an ecological factor is discussed.

In a former paper Allred and Bradley (1965) indicate that osteonecrosis, especially of the dental arcade, is an important factor in the biology of the desert bighorn on the Desert Game Range of southern Nevada. The present study is a comparison of our findings in the Desert Game Range population with other samples from populations in California and Arizona.

We wish to acknowledge the encouragement and assistance of the following individuals who allowed us to examine skulls in them care: Baine Cater, Refuge Manager and Charles G. Hansen, Wildlife Biologist at the Desert Game Range; Dwight Warren at Death Valley National Monument; Rothwell P. Broyles at Joshua Tree National Monument; Claud Lard and Milton Haderlie at Cabeza Prieta and Kofa Game Ranges; John RUSSO, Paul Webb and Gabby Blaser of the Arizona Game and Fish Department; and Jeff Seivers of Seivers Taxadermy in Phoenix, Arizona. Jerry Keller, Department of Biological Sciences, Nevada Southern University assisted with the examination of skulls. Ronald E. Engel and Ken Giles of the U. S, Public Health Service at Las Vegas, Nevada x-rayed material from the Desert Game Range.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Ronald E. Engel and James Em Deacon, Department of Biological Sciences, Nevada Southern University, made suggestions and critically reviewed the manuscript.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Skulls available for study included samples of 2. 5 nelsoni from the Desert Game Range in Nevada and Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments in California. Samples of 0. c. mexicana were studied from Cabeza Prieta and Kofa Game Ranges and from the Phoenix collection assembled by Arizona Game and Fish Department personnel. The exact location from which portions of the Phoenix collection were obtain d was not known at the time of examination and therefore conclusions based on this sample are only referable to the general area of Arizona.

In general, the skulls were picked up by professional biologists, hunters, and other interest.id parties. In addition, a series of lower jaws obtained by the Arizona Game and Fish Department from hunters were used. This material, the bulk of which was obtained as pick-ups may be considered a random, and as far as they include different sex and age groups, a representative sample of the respective populations. Sample sizes for each population is indicated in Table 1.

The sex of all adult skulls was easily determined due to the extreme sexual dimorphism present in bighorn skulls.- The age of each skull was determined by the horn ring technique employed by Cowan (1940) Murie (1946) and others. Adults were considered to be of four years of age or older based on the presence of the full set of teeth by this age (Cowan, 1940; Dalquest and Hoffmeister, 1948; Deming, 1952).

Each skull was examined closely for visible signs of bone destruction(osteonecrosis and osteolysis) and sites of damage were marked on standard data sheets with diagrams of several views of the skull. On certain animals, photographs and x-rays were taken for use in evaluating the presence and extent of damage.

RESULTS

Allred and Bradley (1965) have pointed out the high incidence of necrotic bone of the dental arcade in the Desert Game ~aniepopulation. They found osteonecrosis not only prevalent but widespread throughout the tooth arcade in ewes six years of age or older and in rams 10 years of age or older. The sample size from the California and Arizona populations is inadequate and does not represent all age groups, therefore, the incidence and extent of osteolysis and necrosis is different age groups and by sexes was not analyzed for these populations. How- ever, an increase in incidence associated with age is clearly indicated in the Desert Game Range population (Allred and Bradley,.1965). In an examination of 74 rams and 48 ewes over four years of age, osteolytic damage or osteonecrosis associated with the teeth was found in all but one ewe. This condition was not found in 11 lamb skulls, suggesting that this condition is common only in adults.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Incidence of Osteonecrosis and ~steol~sis- The incidence of osteolysis and necrosis associated with the upper and lower tooth rows is indicated in Table 1. These same data are shown as percentages in Table 2. Even when taking into consideration that only a smaller number of maxillae were examined from California and Arizona it is readily apparent that there is a significantly higher incidence of this condition associated with the upper cheek teeth in the Desert Game Range sample. The limited number of maxillae from the Death Valley population exhibits by far the lowest incidence of this condition as contrasted to the much higher incidence in the adjacent Joshua Tree population.

The samples of mandibles from California and Gabeza Prieta and Kofa Game Ranges are far too limited to give any real indication of the incidence of bone damage associated with the lower tooth row. However, on the basis of the sizable samples from the Desert Game Range and the Phoenix Area there is a clear indi- cation that the incidence of ostronecrosis and ostrolysis associated with the lower tooth row is far higher in the Nevada population.

Additional evidence for the higher incidence of this condition associated with both upper and lower tooth rows in the Nevada population is indicated in Table 3. It is further readily apparent that there is a far greater incidence of osteolysis and necrosis associated with the upper than the lower cheek teeth.

Extent of Osteonecrosis and Osteolysis

The extent of osteolysis and necrotic damage to the bone surrounding the tooth rows can be estimated by the number of sites in relation to individual teeth (Table 3). The per cent of occurence of osteolysis and necrosis for the bone surrounding each individual tooth for the upper cheek teeth is illustrated for combined samples representing each state in Figure 1. It is clearly indicated that there is a higher incidence of this condition associated with the molar than the premolar series. Allred and Bradley (1965) have suggested that the initial site of necrosis or lysis is in the region of the first two molars, spreading in both directions and beooming extensive throughout the tooth row in older animals. There is also an indication in Figure 1 that for the Nevada and Arizona populations, this condition is more extensive on the lingual surface of the bones associated with the upper tooth row.

The per cent of occurence of osteolytic and necrotic bone associated with each tooth of the lower cheek teeth as indicated in Figure 2. A more extensive condition in the molar series is evident in the Nevada population. The large series of mandibles' from the Phoenix collection exhibit far less damage which appears to occur at about the same level throughout the entire cheeck tooth row.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TUNSACTIONS Another means of determining the extent of damage in either jaw for areas not in immediate contact with the teeth is developed below. Three conditions of lysis and necrosis of the bone, A, B, and C, were chosen and illustrated in Figure 3. These conditions for the upper jaw are shown in Tables 4 and 5. In relation to the buccal surface (Table 4) the A condition is quite extensive in the Joshua Tree, Desert Game Range, and Phoenix material. The B condition is common in the Desert Game Range and both Arizona collections and the C condition is common only in the Desert Game Range and Phoenix collections. A similar picture is seen in Table 5 in that the A condition is common in all samples with the exception of Death Valley. The three conditions of lysis and necrosis are more prevalent for both the lingual and buccal surfaces in the Desert Game Range population.

The conditions of lysis and necrosis of the bone for the mandible are given in Table 6. The A condition is far higher in the sample from the Desert ~ame Range and the C condition is high in the Death Valley sample.

DISCUSSION

Allred and Bradley (1965) concluded that damage to the bone surrounding the dental arch was an important limiting factor effecting the ecological life expectancy of the desert bighorn population on the Desert Game Range.

In conjunction with this bone reduction which eventually would expose the roots of the cheek teeth, they found that missing teeth were common especially in older animals. Maintenance of vigor and good health must depend upon proper nutrition and any disability such as missing or loosened teeth would hinder the ingestion and digestion processes and therefore be a contributing or eventually the main cause of death.

The present study suggests a similar condition which is less prevalent and extensive in the samples from California and Arizona. These latter samples are not adequate to fully determine the incidence and severity of bone damage but suggest that it is less for both the California and Arizona populations. The data for these populations, also do not allow an analysis by sex and age groups as was done for the Desert Game Range population. However, this condition may be a significant factor, effecting the vigor and life span of these populations and deserves further study.

The present study clearly indicates the existence of this condition in populations of desert bighorn sheep found in the three states and further study may document more fully the degree of difference in this condition between populations.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS LITERATURE CITED

Allred, L. G. and W. G. Bradley. 1965. Necrosis and anomaly of the skull in Desert Bighorn Sheep. Trans. Desert Bighorn Council.

Cowan, I. M. 1940. Distribution and variation in the native sheep of North America. Amer. Midl. Nat, 24:505:580.

Dalquest, W. W. and D. F. Hoffmeister. 1948. Mountain sheep from the state of Washington in the collection of the University of Kansas. Acad. Sci. Kansas Trans. 51(2):224-234.

Deming, 0. V. 1952. Tooth development of the Nelson bighorn sheep. Calif. Fish and Game. 38:523-529.

Murie, A. 1944. The wolves of Mt. McKinley. United States (Fauna of the National Parks of the U. S., Fauna Series No. 5, XX:238 pp.) U. S. Dept. Int., Nat. Park Service, Washington.

Table 1. The incidence of osteolysis and necrosis associated with the upper and lower tooth rows of adult desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis).

No. Maxillae No. with Locality No.Mandibles No.with Examined Condition Examined Condition

California Joshua Tree National Monument 5 Death Valley National Monument 18 Total for California 23

Nevada Desert Game Range 122

Arizona Phoenix collection 5 Cabeza Prieta and Kofa Game Ranges 16 Total for Arizona 21

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Table 2. The per cent of occurrence of osteolysis and necrosis associated with the upper and lower tooth rows in adult desert bighorn sheep (his canadensis),

Per cent of Occurrence Locality Upper tooth row Lower tooth row

California Death Valley National Monument Joshua Tree National Monument Total for California

Arizona Phoenix collection Cabeza Prieta and Kofa Game Ranges Total for Arizona

Nevada Desert Game Range Total for Nevada

Table 3. The per cent of osteolysis and necrosis associated with the upper and lower cheek teeth in adult desert bighorn sheep (&is canadensis). The per cent computed from the total number of teeth examined as cornpHred with those teeth which exhibit this condition in the surrounding bone.

Locality No. of teeth Per cent No. of teeth Per cent examined Buccal Lingual examined Buccal only

Nevada 1,465 54 61 1,032 7

Arizona 252 24 19 3,096 0.8

California 276 8 5 96 4

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS u M cn m Table 4. - The extent of osteolysis and necrosis of the buccal surface of the maxilla in the region of each cheek tooth in adult desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Data for the right and-left sides of the maxilla are combined. Conditions A, B and C are illustrated in Figure 3.

n Locality No. Examined Condition Per cent of each condition

E: California w Death Valley National Lo D Monument 18 D Joshua Tree National Z cn Monument b

H 0 3 Nevada Desert Game Range 122

Arizona Phoenix collection

Cabeza Prieta and Kofa Game Ranges Table 5. - The extent of osteolysis and necrosis of the lingual surface of the maxilla in the region of each cheek tooth in adult desert bighorn sheep (Ovis- canadensis). Data for the right and left sides of the maxilla are combined. Conditions A, B and C are illustrated in Figure 3.

- Per cent of each condition Locality No. examined Condition 2 3 4 1 2 3 PM PM PM M M M

California

Death Valley National Monument

Joshua Tree National Monument

Nevada

Desert Game Range

Arizona

Phoenix collection

Cabeza Prieta and Kofa Game Ranges Table 6. - The extent of osteolysis and necrosis of the buccal surface of the mandible in the region of each cheek tooth in adult desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Data for the right and left sides of the mandible are combined. Conditions A, B and C are illustrated in Figure 3.

Per cent of each condition Locality No. examined Condition PM pM3 pM4 M1 M~

California

Death Valley National Monument

Nevada

Desert Game Range

Arizona

Phoenix collection

Figure 2. The percent of occurrence of osteonecrosis and osteolysis associated with each individual tooth of the lower cheek teeth in adult desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Only the buccal surface is indicated.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TWSACTIONS Figure 3. - Illustration of the three conditions of lysis and necrosis used in Tables 4, 5, and 6.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS GROWTH OF THE SKULL IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

Lee R. Baker and W. Glen Bradley Department of Biological Sciences Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas

Abstract: An analysis of growth of the skulls in desert bighorn sheep (Ovis- canadensis nelsoni) was attempted using standard measurements of a large number of skulls (19 lambs, 50 ewes, 106 rams). Measurements were grouped by age lasses and sex, then plotted on scatter diagrams td .allow a more refined estimate of yearly growth. Approximately 50 per cent of the growth of the skull occurs by six months of age in contrast to 25-30 per cent of horn development by this time. The apparent differences in the size of the skull of rams and ewes is due to different relative growth rates. Ewes exhibit higher rates of growth for the first two years but then the rates decline more rapidly and detectable growth ceases at an earlier age than in rams. Many areas of the skull, especially horns continue to grow into late maturity while other areas such as the palate and cheek teeth appear to terminate growth upon maturity.

Changes taking place during postnatal growth in the bones of the skull of bighorn sheep (Ovis- canadensis) has received little attention as most studies including measurements of the skull have been primarily taxonomic. Data con- cerning body weights and measurements may be found in Cowan (1940) Aldous et. al. (1958) and Hansen (1964, 1965). The sequence of tooth development of 0. c. nelsoni is described by Deming (1952). Cowan (1940) indicates that th; size relationships of skull and horns are the result of genetic, age and environmental factors aid gives some growth data on a series of skulls of 0. c. canadensis which are of value. Additional growth data for a series of skuils of -0. -c. californica are given by Dalquest and Hoffmeister (1948).

Since a thorough study of growth in this species has not been undertaken using a large sample of skulls it was desirable to attempt to analyze growth in 2. 2. nelsoni using the large series of skulls from the Desert Game Range in southern Nevada which are on deposit at the Biology Museum, Nevada Southern University. Standard measurements were already available on much of this material from a previous study by Baker and Bradley (1965).

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS MATERIALS AND METHODS

The skull collection from the Desert Game Range represents the largest sample of skulls from any Ovis canadensis population in North America known to us. The sample includes the following: 19 lambs from approximately 4 months to 1 year of age; 50 ewes of approximately 2-14 years of age and 106 rams of approximately 1-16 years of age.

Each ram and ewe skull was aged by the horn ring technique employed by Cowan (1940), Murie (1944) and others. The data for lambs were used in analysis of growth for both ewes and rams since the sex could not be determined in all instances although Hansen (1964, 1965) indicates that male and females are distinct from each other by the age of four months. Standard measurements were taken by means of calipers and tape and are reported in millimeters. Standard measurements were analyzed in two ways:

(1) Measurements were grouped into different age and sex classes and averages for each class were computed.

(2) Measurements for each sex were placed on a scatter diagram and a growth curve was drawn by visual inspection of the scatter pattern for the measurement thus allowing an estimate of growth for any age group.

RESULTS

Analysis by Age and Sex Groups

The values for skull measurements grouped into sex and age classes is given in Table 1 and the total increment of growth for both sexes is given in Table 2. It is apparent that rams grow larger in all areas of the skull and horns. Sexual dimorphism as exhibited by the growth increments between six months and maturity is seen to be far greater in the horns than other areas of the skull. Exclusive of the horns the male to female growth increments vary from 50 to 91.7 per cent.

Differences in growth rates between males and females should exist in order for these considerable size differences to exist. The per cent of growth occuring for different age intervals is given for rams in Table 3 and for ewes in Table 4. The per cent of growth for the six months to one year interval in rams is low since the sex of lambs was not determined and their mean values were used in calculations for both sexes. Since growth increments are larger in rams, the growth rates for male lambs must be lower than for female lambs.

Most of the growth as indicated by standard measurements occured by the end of the first five years of age. However, growth does continue into the terminal age group for many of the measurements. Growth is not detectable in palatal widths in both sexes past the 6-9 year interval and appears to almost terminate for both sexes in the tooth rows at about the same time. In many measurements,

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS however, growth appears to continue into the 10-16 or 10-14 year classes. Growth is not detectable in the last age class for basilar length in both sexes and for nasal length in rams.

It is well known that horn growth continues throughout life (Cowan 1940). The apparent termination in growth of the horns shown by our data is probably due to brooming.

Analysis by Scatter Diagrams

The use of scatter diagrams allows an estimate of growth for those age intervals where the sample size is low or may even be nonexistent., Therefore an estimate of yearly growth rates can be attempted.

Successive increments of yearly growth can be estimated by measuring the growth interval on the Y axis between successive years plotted on the X axis. These growth estimates for yearly intervals are given for rams in Table 5 and for ewes in Table 6.

The same error recognized in the previous analysis for male lambs is present in these estimates. In rams, growth for most areas of the skull with the exception of palatal width, cheek teeth and mastoid width, is evident until about 10 years of age. Growth in ewes is not evident at this age interval in several more measurements. Ewes in the 1, 2 and 3 year classes appear to have an initially higher growth rate than rams. However rams maintain a higher rate than ewes for the rest of the active stages of growth which terminates at a later stage of maturity than in ewes. The evidence of higher sustained and prolonged growth in rams than ewes is even more pronounced in horn measure- ments.

Growth to Six Months of Age

A rough estimate of the percentage of total growth occuring by six months of age was made. In most areas of the skull about 50 per cent of the total growth (pre and post natal) has occured by six months of age.

An exception to this generalization is the nasals where less than 40 per cent of the total growth has occured by this time. Horns, especially in rams, exhibit the lowest percentage of the total growth by this time than for any area of the skull. This is to be expected in view of the high and prolonged growth rates which continue into late maturity.

DISCUSSION

The plotting of values for measurements on scatter diagrams allows a certain amount of interpellation where data are scarce or non-existent for a year class.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Growth rates determined from age groups can be used as a check against these interpellations. A comparison of growth rates developed from these two methods was made. Although numerous percentage values for certain measurements differ, the order of difference is not great and is usually under 10 per cent and not uncommonly under 5 per cent. Such differences are to be expected when values are grouped into age intervals covering several years. There does appear to be some justification for the use of scatter diagrams to indicate more refined estimates of growth rates from youth to maturity.

Differences in rates of growth between the sexes which would account for the marked sexual dimorphism are not readily apparent in our data grouped by age classes. However, using this method rams appear to have higher growth rates in approximately two-thirds of the measurements in age classes above one year of age.

A better indication of differences in rates of growth which would result in this dimorphism is suggested from the estimates derived from the use of scatter diagrams. Ewes exhibit higher rates for the first two years but detectable growth ceases in many measurements at about eight years of age. In addition rates of growth decline more rapidly in adult ewes than in rams where they not only maintain higher rates into maturity but detectable growth does not cease in most areas until about 10 years of age. The horns especially exhibit the more prolonged and higher growth rate in rams than ewes which results in the higher development of these structures in rams than in ewes.

The highest growth rates are gound in prenatal and postnatal growth up to six months of age when approximately 50 per cent of the growth of the skull has been completed as contrasted with about 25 to 30 per cent of the development of the horns.

LITERATURE CITED

Aldous, M. C., F. 6. Craighead, Jr. and G. A. Devan. 1958. Some measurements of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni), J. Wildl. Mgt, 22:444-445.

Baker, L. and W. G. Bradley. 1965. Skull measurements of desert bighorn sheep from the Desert Game Range. Trans, Desert Bighorn Council: 70-74.

Cowan, I. M, 1940. Distribution and variation in the native sheep of North America. her. Midl, Nat,, 24:505-580.

Dalquest, W:W. and D, F. Hoffmeister. 1948. Mountain sheep from the state of Washington in the collection of the University of Kansas. Acad. Sci. Kansas Trans, 51(2) : 224-234.

Deming, 0. V. 1952. Tooth development of the Nelson bighorn sheep. Calif. Fish and Game. 38:523-529.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Hansen, C. G. 1964. Progress Report from the Desert Game Range, Nevada. Trans. Desert Bighorn Council: 69-76.

Hansen, C. G. 1965. Growth and development of desert bighorn sheep. J. Wildl. Mgt. 29:387-391.

Murie, A. 1944. The Wolves of Mt. McKinley. (Fauna of the National Parks of the U. S., Fauna Series No. 5, xx:238 pp.) U. S. Dept. Int., Nat. Park Service, Washington.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS DESERT B IGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Table 1. continued

Lambs Rams Measurement N 1 month N 6 months N 1 year N Et'esyears N 10 years N 1 year N 6 years N 10 years to to to to to to to to 6 months 1 year 5 years 9 years 14 years 5 years 9 years 16 years Length right lower molar series

Length left lower molar series

Prepalveolar length

Pos t-dental length

Width basioccipal

Width premaxillae

Basal circum. of right horn

Basal circum. of left horn

Circum. of right core

Circum. of left core

Length of right horn

Length of left horn

Spread of horns 105 Table 2. The average growth increment in millimeters for standard measurements in 2. 2. nelsoni from the Desert Game Range

Ewes Rams 6 months 6 months Per cent of female Measurement to to to male growth 14 years 16 years Basilar length

Nasal length 54 64 84.4

Nasal width 17 34 50.0

Orbital width 45 52 86.5

Zygomatic width

Maxillary width 26 34 76.5

Mastoid width 26 42 61.9

Palatal breadth at M~ 19 21 90.5

Palatal breadth at PM 2

Post palatal width 8 12 66.7

Palatal length (Cowan) 43 51 84.3

Palatal length (Cockrum) 55 60 91.7

Length right upper molar series 30 36 83.3

Length left upper molar series 30 36 83.3

Length right lower molar series 31 35 88.6

Cength left lower molar series 30 35 85.7

Prealveolar length 27 31 80.1

Post-dental length 31 39 79.5

Width of Basioccipi tal 6 11 54.5

Width of premaxillae

Basal Circum. of right horn 26 233 11.2

Basal Circum. of left horn 28 232 12.1

Circum. of right core 42 247 17.0

Circum of left core 46 246 18.7

Length of right horn 132 664 19.9

Length of left £om 131 676 19.4

Spread of horns 198 384 51.6

pp -- DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS 106 Table 3. The per cent of growth for each age interval in female 2, 2. nelsoni from the Desert Game Range.

Measurement 6 months 1 ear 6 ears 10 ears to To To 0 1 year 5 years 9 years 14 ryears Basilar length 39.8 53.8 6.5 0

Nasal length 21.8 54.5 18.2 3.6

Nasal width 47.0 35.3 17.6 0

Orbital width 33.3 58.3 5.6 2.8

Zygomatic width 37.5 59.4 0 .1

Maxillary width 30.8 53.8 11.5 3.8

Mastoid width 46.2 38.5 11.5 3.8

Palatal width at FI3 47.4 63.2 0 -15.8

Palatal width at PM2 33.3 66.7 0 0

Post-palatal width

Palatal length (Cowan)

Palatal length (Cockrum)

Length right upper molar series 33.3 63.3 3.3 0

Length left upper molar series 30.0 70.0 -3.3 0

Length right lower molar series

Length left lower molar series

Prealveolar length

Post-dental length

Width of basioccipital

Width of premaxillae

Basal circum of right horn

Basal circum of left horn

Circum. of right core

Circum of left core

Length of right horn

Length of left horn

Spread of horns

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Table 4. The per cent of growth for each age interval; in male 2. c. nelsoni from the Desert Game Range. 6 months 1 year 6 years 10 years Measurement to to to to 1 year 5 years 9 years 16 years Basilar length

Nasal length

Nasal width

Orbital width

Zygomatic width

Maxillary width

Mastoid width

Palatal width at M~

Post palatal width at PM2

Post palatal width

Palatal length (Cowan)

Palatal length (Cockrum)

Length right upper molar series

Length left upper molar series

Length right lower molar series

Length left lower molar series

Prealveolar length

Post-dental length

Width basioccipital

Width of premaxillae

Basal circum. right horn

Basal circum left horn

Circum. of right core

Circum. of left core

Length of right horn

Length of left horn

Spread of horns

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Table 5. An estimate from scatter diagrams of the per cent of yearly growth in male 2. 2. nelsoni from the Desert Game Range.

------per cent of growth for yearly intervals Measurement 6 MO-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16

Basilar length

Nasal length

Nasal width

Orbital width

Zygornatic width

Maxillary width

Mastoid width

Palatal breadth at M~

Palatal breadth at PM~

Post palatal width

Palatal length (Cowan)

Palatal lqth (Cockrum)

Length upper molar series

Length lmr molar series

Prealveolar length

Post dental length

Width of basioccipital

Width of premaxillae

Basal circum. of horn

Circum. of core

Length of horn

Spread of horns Table 6. An estimate from scatter diagrams of the per cent of yearly growth in female 2. s. nelsoni from the

!2L-4 Desert Game Range.- cn M Per cent of growth for ijearly intervals Measurement 6MO-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 -9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 Basilar length 28.7 31.7 22.8 8.9 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0 0 0 E 8 Nasal length Nasal width 0 Orbital width 26.3 40.8 26.3 5.3 0 0 0 1.3 0 0 1.3 0 0 0 s Zygomatic width 31.3 37.5 15.6 6.3 0 0 15.6 0 1.6 3.1 1.6 0 1.6 0 \D Q\ cn Maxillary width 27.6 41.4 13.8 3.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 3.4 1.7 1.7 1.7 0 0

Mastoid width cn* 0 Palatal breadth at M3 31.8 50.0 18.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 Palatal breadth at pM2 17.6 41.2 23.5 11.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Post palatal width 25.0 50.0 18.8 0 0 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Palatal length (Cowan) 17.0 27.7

Palatal length (Cockrum) 18.4 34.2

Lengthupper molar series 24.1 33.8 Length lmr molar series 18.8 35.9 Prealveolar length 14.8 33.3 Post dental length 23.5 35.3 Width of basiccipital 20.0 20.0 Width of Premaxillae 18.2 36.4 Basal circum. of horn 18.2 27.3 Circum. of core 27.8 38.0 14.8 4.1 2.8 1.9 5.0 2.2 1.5 0 0.4 0.4 0 0

Length of horn 13.2 36.0 6.9 9.9 4.7 4.4 3.5 2.3 2.0 1.5 0.6 0.3 0 0

Spread of horns 43.9 30.2 13.2 6.3 2.1 2.6 1.1 .5 0 0 -0.3 -0.5 -0.8 0

TECHNIQUES IN BITA AT EVALUATION

Byron R. donaldson Departme.lt of Game and Fish Silver City, New Mexico

Abstract: There are numerous methods to evaluate habitat and they are found in many volumes of literature. The field investigator should review the literature and-adapt the most suitable method to his situation.

Habitat evaluation can be accomplished by extensive or intensive methods. The extensive techniques involve a cover map that includes sufficient details to indicate the general condition of the primary vegetation or animals concerned. This infor- mation may be obtained in a reconnaissance manner without measuring the vegetation. Some of the techniques include ocular estimation, measuring the obstruction of vision, and measuring the influence of cover on exclusion of light and photographi- cally. The density of vegetation may be recorded in percentages, or as being scattered, or light, medium, and dense.

A more intensive evaluation may be required when reconnaissance techniques do not completely meet the requirements of the investigator. This type of evaluation requires specific objectives and a design that allows the field man to accomplish the objectives. The vegetation is measured to determine its presence, absence, basal area, cover, frequency, density, dominance and importance. One of the important factors to determine is what size and shape of plot would best suit a situation that would be the least expensive but provide sufficient data.

INTRODUCTION

Since the livelihood of the bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and all other animals are dependent on their environment, we as wildlife managers have to know the requirements of the animals in order to manage the populations to the best of our ability. To increase our knowledge and develop our skill in management, the evaluation of habitat is a very important basic factor.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS There are numerous techniques to evqluate habitat, consequently this paper will discuss only a few. Also, it should be kept in mind that a technique developed in a humid area may not be suitable in an arid or a semi-arid area and vice-versa.

A person that is planning habitat investigations should review literature such as Phillips 1959 and Mosby, --et al. 1960.

MATERIAL AND DISCTTSSION

The obz3ctives of an investigation should be predetermined and adhered to with applic-.:ion of techniques intelligently to measure the area in question. The amount of detail will depend on the intended use of the evaluation.

Habitat evaluation may be accomplished in an extensive or intensive form. The intended use of evaluation, the size of the area, the time available and the principal animal species of interest are usually the determining factors in an extensive or an intensive evaluation.

An extensive evaluation of an area may be conducted in a reconnaissance manner thus indicating the general conditions for the principal species present. The information that is recorded may include the density and composition of the plant cover, food production, availability and use and the types of soil present.

A cover map is very useful for obtaining general conditions. Transfering the vegetative types from an old cover type map or from aerial photographs to a base or contour map will conserve considerable time that would otherwise be spent in the field. The map should be field checked for changes in vegetation density and composition, ground cover, and status of water.

Vegetation may be classified into three categories: overstory, understory, and ground cover. The density of the vegetation may be determined by ocular estimation, measuring the obstruction of vision, and by use of photoelectric devices to measure the influence of cover on exclusion of light. Density may be recorded in percentages, or as being scattered, or light, medium, and dense.

The ocular estimate method can be conducted by experienced field men having knowledge of the principle species requirements. Cover density may be recorded as percentages, or as being scarce, medium, or dense without any measurements taken.

The measuring of obstruction to vision method involves use of a "density board". The board is six feet in height with each foot marked and numbered from one to six starting at the bottom. One man places the board in the cover and another man, at a distance of one chain, reads the figures that are unobscured by the cover. If the board is completely covered, the reading would be zero; if the board is completely uncovered the reading would be 21, on through six added. A suggested classification for the average of several readings is 16% scarce, 33% to 66% medium, and 66% and over is dense.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Another method for measuring cover density is by using photoelectric equipment. This method involves the use of two photographic exposure meters supported on separate frames eight inches square and eight inches above another eight inch board painted aluminum. The readings are taken with the meters facing downward, thereby reading the reflected light from the base board of the frame. Density is measured by taking simultaneous readings in full light and under cover and ~ecordedas a fraction. The fraction being the reading taken under cover divided by the reading taken in full light giving percent of light admitted by cover. A suggested classification for the average of several readings is: zero to 50% is dense, 51% to 75% is medium, and more than 75% is scarce.

The author (Donaldson 1965) developed a formula method for evaluating the general habitat condition of the javeline (Tayassu tajacu sonoriensis) in southwestern New Mexico. The habitat was evaluated according to the density of the dominant vegetation on the slopes and in the draws, major food plants present, type and complexity of terrain, major composition of rock formations, abundance of rock outcrops, and type of watering areas present. This information was recorded in one of two formulas: one referred to the vegetation and the other to the geology. Ocular estimates were used for all relative measurements and the formulas were constructed so that uniform observations could be made at various areas checked. The formula approach also allows reduction of complex data to an analyzable form (Tables 1 and 2).

The first main heading of the vegetation formula indicated the two major types: mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) and juniper (Juniperus deppeana) and Q. monosperma). These two plant types comprise the dominant vegetation. Vegetation density varies with elevation, location of slopes, and in some instances the land practices. In the vegetation formula under B2c is a category called ltotherl'. This category is for plants that are of some significance, but not enough to be considered of major dominance. These included Apache plum (Fallugia paradoxa), skunkbush (Rhus sp.), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), sycamore (Platinus wrightii), and yellow pine (Pinus ponderosa).

Mescal is treated as a separate category under food plants because it is present throughout the area and is important as a staple food.

The geological formula provides a general description of the area and defines the specific terrain, rock formation, outcrops, and availability of water within four sections around each herd.

The first main heading of the geological formula indicates the type of mountain, such as mountains and canyons, or mountains and foothills. The mountain and canyon type includes areas intersected by several ridges and offering many slope exposures. The mountain and foothill type includes areas possessing only one or two major ridges and having a limited number of slope exposures.

The second heading of the geological formula is terrain which deals with the micro terrain of the four sections surveyed around each herd; therefore, a more detailed description of the specific habitat.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS The geology and vegetation formulas were recorded on a habitat form that included the name of the landowner, name of the ranch, township, range, number of sections surveyed, date surveyed, number of javelina observed, and a brief narration of incidental data. One habitat form was completed for each surveyed area. Formulas were recorded for all areas where observations or signs of javelina were noted (Table 3).

A more intensive method may be required when the reconnaissance evaluation of wildlife habitat does not completely meet the requirements of the investigator. The objectives of the method should be clearly stated. Avoid devoting excessive efforts to gadge- teering and instrumentation. A statistician may assist in design and analyzation of data.

An intensive evaluation system usually involves measuring vegetation according to its presence or absence, basal area, cover, frequency, density, dom$nance, and importance. Determining any of these items involves a sampling plot or quadrat. The shape and size of plots or quadrats is determined by the homogeneity of the plant community, intensity of the investigation, type of vegetation or animal, and the variable results that a certain type of plot or quadrate will give. Quadrats normally used in studies of vegetation include the list, basal area, clip, chart, denuded, and permanent quadrats. It is possible to use the same type of quadrat for more than one purpose. Some other types of sampling methods are the belt line and point transects, circular plots, and enclosures or exclosures. The last two are used to determine the influence of animals on their environment.

The circular plot method, for low herbaceous vegetation, has distinct advantages since it requires less material than quadrats and is easy to accomplish.

Rectangular quadrats are more efficient than square plots of equal size. Short strips give less variable results than square plots, but they are more variable than long strips.

As mentioned before, the size of the sample plot will depend on the homogeneity of the plant community, the intensity of the investigation, and the type of vegetation or animal of primary concern. Suggested plot sizes have been one-half acre plots for trees, one-quarter acre plots for shrubs, and one-one hundreth acre plots for herbs.

The size of the sample plot must have a practical as well as a statistical importance, therefore, the smaller the plot the lower the cost. A method to determine minimum plot size is the use of a species-area curve. The construction of this curve is made by plotting the number of species recorded in the sampling on the "y" axis and the number of samples on the "x" axis. When the data is plotted the curve rises abruptly and then levels,off. The point where the curve begins to level indicates the minimum number of samples required to accurately evaluate the area.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS There are many factors to be considered in evaluating habitat not mentioned in this paper, and there were some that were mentioned but not discussed. The field investigator should review the abundant literature and use methods 'best suited to his particular situation.

LITERATURE CITED

Donaldson, B. R. 1965. Abundance and distribution of javelina in southwestern New Mexico. New Mexico State University, University Park, New Mexico, Master Thesis.

Mosby, H. S. (editor). 1960. Manual of game investigational techniques. The Wildl. Soc. and Edwards Bros. Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich.

Phillips, E. A. 1959. Methods of vegetation study. Henry Holt and Co., Inc. 107 p.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Table 1. Entries used in the construction of a vegetative formula and an example of a vegetative formula recorded In the Peloncillo Mountains in south- western New Mexico.

Example: A2-Blb, 2a(l)-C2a-b, 3b

A. Dominant plant type (woody species) 1. Mesquite dominance 2. Juniper dominance

B. Density of plants 1. Slopes a. dense - touching canopies b. savannah - non-touching canopies C. sparse 2. Draws a. juniper b. oak c. other - described in narration (1) dense (2) savannah (3) sparse

C. Food plants 1. Mesquite, prickly pear a. dense b. widespread C. sparse 2. Juniper, oak, pinyon (mast) a, dense b. savannah C. sparse 3. Mescal a. dense b. widespread C. sparce

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Table 2. Entries used in the construction of a geological formula and an example of a geological formula from the Peloncillo Mountains in southwestern New Mexico,

Example: I 1 - I1 1 I11 la, 2b(l) - IV 2 I, General description of area

1, Mountain and canyon - usually complex mountains with numerous ridges and exposures separated by deep canyons.

2, Mountain and foothill - usually simple mountains and foothills with one major ridge and two major exposures.

11, Terrain 1. Complex - generally rough, area bisected with ridges and deep canyons, giving many exposures, 2, Simple - generally one or two major ridges in the area, number of exposures limited,

111, Rock Formation

1, 5pe a, granite b, metamorphic c, limestone d, sandstone

2, Outcrops a. prominant'- provides ample cover (1) widespread in area (2.) restricted (mountain tops or high ridge points) b. not prominant - provides limited cover (1) widespread in area (2) restricted

IV. Water

1. Permanent

2, Seasonal

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Table 3, Entries used in habitat formula sheet with vegetation and geological formulas with short narration in the Gillespie Mountains in south- western New Mexico,

Location:

Ranch Alfred Johnsm--Freezenblom Mountain

Township 28 south

Range 19 west Sections 6

Date June 8, 1963

Number of Jave 1ha

Observed Estimated

10

Habitat .Formula:

Vegetation A1-Blb, 2a, c(3)-Clb, 2b, 3a

Geology 11-112-IIIlc, 2a(l)-IV2

Narration

The distance from one tank to another is not over 1% miles. In the vegetation formula-Blb, 2a, c(3)-the other vegetation in the draws is Apache plum, catclaw, whitethorn and mesquite which also provides cover along with undercut arroyo banks,

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS RECENT LITERATURE

Jim Yoakum Bureau of Land Management Reno, Nevada

A total of 12 publications on or pertaining to desert bighorn sheep are cited with abstracts. These publications have been printed within the last two years. The objective of this review is to list current published material on desert bighorns in order to keep fellow workers informed of available information. The author would appreciate being advised of any publications omitted, consequently, they may be considered for inclusion in future Desert Bighorn Council Transactions.

Allred, L. Em, La R. Baker, and \V. C. Bradley. 1966. Additional studies of anomalies of the skull in Desert Bighorn Sheep. Calif.-fiev. The Wildl. Society Trans. 1:40-47.

"Data are presented on anomalies of the skull based on examination of 260 skulls of -Ovis canadensis nelsoni from the Desert Game Range in Nevada. Variations in the dentition are common, especially the absence of second pre-molars in adults. Approximately 7.4 percent of the rams and 34.3 percent of the ewes examined had one or more missing second pre-molars. This condition is more common in the lower jaw. A deflection of the occipital region from the anterior-posterior axis was found in rams. In addition certain minor anomalies were found. The incidence of dental and other anomalies is believed to be higher than that normally found in other mammalian populations ."

California Department of Fish and Game. 1366. California fish and wildlife plan. Calif. Dept. Fish F, Game, Sacramento, Calif. Vol. 1:110 p; 2:216 p; 3:1051 pa

The purpose of plan is to point out how conservation, enhancement, and

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS restoration for each of Califqrnia's fish and wildlife species and their habitat can be achieved. Although each volume contains some material pertinent to bighorns, volume two (pages 45-47) contains a "lVildlife Plan for Bighorn Shee?". This is broken dorm into: Introduction, Present Status, Present Use, Problems, Program for Maintaining the Resource, Program for Use of the Resource, and Implementation. The Plan specifi- cally calls for (a) protection of populations and habitat, (b) feasibility studies for introductions into original habitat, (c) public education for awareness and appreciation of species, (d) on depleted ranges, initiate management to favor bighorns, (e)' collect data on life history and uses of land, (f) study diseases, (g) and active law enforcement to minimize poaching.

Call, P. W. 1966. Utah's bighorns. Our Public Lands 15(4):11.

Utah Fish and Game Department and BLM are taking steps to study and analyze the bighorn sheep population, its distribution, seasonal migrations, range conditions, reproductive st atus and mortality factors in southeastern Utah. It is hoped the animals numbers may be increased by water developments and other habitat improvements and by reducing the major causes of mortality.

Gullion, G. W. 1964. Wildlife uses of Nevada plants. Mim. Agric. Exp. Sta., U. of Elinn, St. Paul, Scientific J. Series Paper No. 5140, 173 p. (Reprinted 1966 by Nev. State Dept. of Agsic., Reno, Nevada).

A limited number of reprint copies are available for distribution to institutions which did not receive a copy of the first printing. The first portion of this monogra.ph lists each plant species and provides notes on their use by wildlife. The second part provides a table listing each plant species and its use by wild animals, Bighorns are listed as using 107 different plant .species.

Hansen, C, G. 1965. Desert bighorn sheep hunting in Nevada. The Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn, 2521 Ellis Street, Las Vegas, Nevada. 19 p.

The first part of this publication covers the hunting regulations and the latter part life history, hunting and management information. Chapters are devoted to Desert Bighorn Hunting in Nevada, Hunting Regulations (The Tmphy Ran), IIorn Ring Method of Ageing Desert Bighorn, llabitat and Behavior, Management of Desert Bighorn Sheep, and Recommendations For Hunters. The booklet is well illustrated with photos and line drawings. Publication was accomplished by the Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn, a private organization dedicated to the utilization, conservation and welfare of the Desert Bighorn Sheep.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS . 1965. White spotting in bighorn sheep from the Desert Game Range, Nevada. J. Mammal, 46(2):352-353.

"Records of pied desert bighorn sheep from the Desert Game Range indicate the presence of a factor for white spotting in a small, relatively isolated herd. These whitist or pinto bighorn sheep have been observed only on the Pintwater Range north of Indian Springs, Nevada. An estimated 200 sheep are in the Pintwater herd, which has been relatively stable for the last 10 or 15 years." . 1965. Growth and development of desert bighorn sheep were studied on the Desert Game Range, Nevada. A set of characteristics was developed for use by field workers. As lambs develop, facial characteristics, horn length, and horn shape are used to distinguish age and sex of the animal. The horns appear on both sexes at approximately two months of age. The male lamb at one year is usually the size of an adult ewe, while the female lamb is considerably smaller. Line drawings by Pat Hansen are included to diagrametically illustrate body and horn developments. bight, J. T., T. R. Zrelak, H. Graham. 1966. San Gorgonio bighorn habitat management plan. U. S. Forest Service. San Bernardino, Calif. 24 p. (mimeo.)

Seventy-five bighorns are loacted in the San Gorgonio mountain area. The primary purpose of this plan is to give direction for management of bighorn habitat. A survey of the range was completed. There is competition for various uses of the range inhabited by bighorns. Bighorns have been given priority over other uses where those uses could cause damage or loss of key portions of the bighorn range.

McCullough, D. R., and E. Re Schneegas. 1966. Winter observations on the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. Calif. Fish and Game 52(2):68-84.

"Sierra bighorn sheep were studies on their winter ranges on the east slope of the Sierras. Ranges are characterized by rugged granite terrain. Reproduction rates were relatively low. Bitterbrush, California buckwheat, green ephedra, and needle grass were the most important foods. Nutritional content was high except for phosphorus. Sheep harbored moderate infestations of lungworms and lambs also showed infection with Nematodirus. Ranges of deer, elk, and cattle barely overlapped the bighorn ranges and forage competition was absent. Potential population controls are discussed."

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Simmons, N. M. and J. L. Phillips. 1966. Modifications of a dye-spraying device for marking Desert Bighorn Sheep. J. Wildl. Mgmt . 30 (1) :208-209. "A solenoid-triggered spray device for marking desert bighorn sheep (Ovis- canadensis) visiting waterho les in the summer was developed and tested by Bureau of Sport Fisheries an.d Wildlife personnel in 1964. The solenoid trigger permitted instantaneous release of the dye spray and inconspicuous placement of electric cable, resulting in frequent successful and accurate marking of desert bighorn sheep." A detailed drawing is provided of the solenoid-operated dye-spraying unit.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1964. Water developments-- range improvements in Nevada for wildlife, livestock, and human use. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada 37 p.

Originally printed in 1964, this publication has been out-of-print, but recently reprinted and now available. The following pages discuss water develo~mentsrelative to bighorn sheep:

Page 21 - spring improvements 27 - concrete tanks 35 - water catchments (guzzlers) 37 - reinforced concrete dams

Diagramatic sketches showing generalized construction plans as well as many photos are included.

U.S. Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1865. Big game inventory for 1964. Wash., D. C. Wildl. Leaflet 470, 4 p.

This inventory for 1964 summarizes the kill and population data provided by the 48-states reporting. This is the best information available on the abundance of big game species, b ut it should be stressed that population figures reported herein are estimates only, in most cases." Although the inventory does not segregate big game by species, this can be accomplished in general by reviewing the following data for the states maintaining Desert Highorns :

Population Population Hunter Kill State Estimate Status

Arizona 25 2,600 Same California No open season 2,000 Same Nevada 6 2,515 Same New Mexico No open season --I More Texas No open season --- More Utah No open season 100 More

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Attendee Roster

DESERT BIGIIO RV COUNCI L bIEETING Silver City, New Fkxico

L. Glenn Allred, Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas, Nevada Ronald D. Anderson, Arizona Fish and Came Department, Casa Grande, Arizona John G, Augsbarger, IJniversity of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Lee R. Baker, Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas, Nevada Nr. 6 Mrs. Ollie Barney, Tucson, Arizona James A. Rlaisdell, National Park Service, Grand Canyon, Arizona E. L. Roeker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 'Tempe, Arizona 1V. Glen Bradley, Nevada Southern University, Las Vegas, Nevada Stanley E. Broman, National Park Serv i'c e , 13ox 728, Santa Fe , Kew FIexico David E. Brown, Arizona Fish and Came Department, Tucson, Arizona Rothwell P. Hroyles, National J'ark Service, Joshua Tree, Ncw Nexico

Mayo W. Call, Bureau of Land ?4anaaement, Salt Lake City, Utah Ysabel Cambell, New Mexico State University, Box 679, Silver City, New Mexico

Alan Denniston, National Park Service, Boulder City, Nevada Bryon T?. Donaldson, New !lexica Department of Fish and Came, Silver City, Mew Mexico

James T. Emanuel , it$.S. PI. R. , Las Cruces , New Yexico F.o~laldE. Enzqel, !J. S; Puihlic Ikalth Service, Las Ve,gas, i:u'evada

John D. Goodman, Un.iversity of Redlands, Redlands, Ca.lifornia Ladd S. Cordon, New '~Iexico Fish and Game Department, Santa Fe, New ?Iexico William Graf, San Jose State College, San Jose, California Ilatch Graham, U. S. Forest Service, San Rernardino, California

Tommy L. IIailey, Texas Parks and Kildlife, P.O. Eox 1228, Karfa, Texas John Fl. llall, l1.S. Forest Service, Albuquerque, New ?iexico Charles G. Hansen, 11i.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Vegas, Nevada Bruce I(. IIarris, New Vexico State Game Dept . , Silver City, New Yexico Pale Hibbs , Colorado Fish and Came Dept . , Colorado Springs, Colorado David .J. Itipply, Arizona Game and Fish Dept., Phoenix, Arizona 1':illiam S. kluey, New P

Jim Jett, Arizona Fish and Cam Department, Kingman, Arizona Richard C. Johnson, U.S. Forest Service, Silver City, New Pkxico

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS Warren C;, Kelly, Hunter Ligget Nilitary Res. , ,Jolon, California Cecil A. Kennedy, Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Cruces, New hlexico Nalter H. Kittams, National Park Service, Carlsbad, New ?.kxico

C. F. Lard, 1J.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yuma, Arizona Levon Lee, New Mexico Fish and Game Dcpartnent, Santa Fe, Ecw Flexico Jim Levy, Tucson, Arizona Gears \I]. Litton, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Box 851, Van Horn, Texas H. :!Xevan Logsdon, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado

Jim McClellan, New Jfexico Fish and Game Department, Las Cruces, New Mexico Fred D. :kCormick, Gax Protective .Association, Silver City, New Mexico Wallace ?-IcGregor, ~aliforniaDept. of -Fish and Game, Sacramento, California .Jeff blc$Iichael, Arizona Game and FiSH Department, Phoenix, Arizona Gale Nonson, U.S. Fish and WiMlife Service, Nashington, 1). C. L. C. ?loore, Jr. , Bureau of 'Land Management, Socorro, New Yexico

Marcus C, Nelson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, Sew Kexico

Leslie A. Oliver, Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces, New I-lexico

John M. Parrish, California Dept. of Fish and Garile, Fresno, California I). R. Patton, Forest and Rans Experiment Station, Tempe, Arizona Richard G. Prasil, National Park Service, 450 Golden Gate, San Francisco, Calif.

Dick Raught, New Mexico Fish and Game Department, Las Cruces, New Mexico ,Jack A. Rensel, Ogden, Utah Forrest L. Reynolds, California Dept. of Fish and Game, Niland, California John P. Russo , Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona

Roger A. Smith, 11. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Box 756, Las Cruces, New Mexico Earl Sparks, Salt Lake City, Utah IIomer D. Stapley, Salt Lake City, Utah Robert Stewart, New Nexico Game and Fish Department, Santa Fe, New !.lexica Lowell Sumner, National Park Service, Washington, D. C. Ray Swigart, U.S. Forest Service, Silver City, New bkxico

John B: Varden, Portland, Oregon

Richard Weaver, California Ilept. of Fish and Gam, Niland, California Ed Webb, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona Robert D. Welch, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Wexico George W. We1 sh, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Kingman, Arizona Lanny 0. Wilson, 1J.S. Forest Service.; Utah State University, Logan, Utah F. A. Winter, 7J.S. Forest Service, 1015 Lake, Pasadena, California J. S. Nood, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico

Jim Yoakum, Bureau of Land Management, Keno, Nevada Jim Young, Bureau of Land Vanagement , Las Cruces, New Mexico

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1966 TRANSACTIONS DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL -- 1965-66 DFFICEBS: Chairman: Cecil Kennedy, U. S. Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Las Cruces, New Mexico Vice-chairman: Richard Raught, New Mexico State Fish & Game Department, Las Cruces, New Mexico Past-Chairman: John Goodman, University of Redlands, Redlands, California Secretary-Treasurer: John RUSSO, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Ariz.

TECHNICAL STAFF: C. Hansen. (Chaimn), J. E. Wood, A. R. Jonez, J. Yoakum, N. Simmons, J. Blaisdell, I. R. Garcia

GOMMITTEES: Nominating: J. Blaisdell(Chairman), N. Simmons, C. Lard, E. Schneegas Publicity: J. Sands (Chairman), B. Stuart, J. McDowell, B. Harris Arrangements: R. Smith (Chairman), R. Johnson, R. Swigart Constitution: J. Russo and C. Kennedy Awards: G. Welsh (Chairman), C. Lard, E. Schneegas, R. Stewart Three-Quarter Curl: R. Brechbill (chairman), G. Welsh, G. Wilson, S. James Program: J. Wood (Chairman), B. Donaldson Resolutions: G. Monson (Chairman), W. Graf, R. Welles Transactions: J. Yoakum (Editor), C. Hansen, B. Graf, N. Simmons

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL MEETINGS AND OFFICERS 1957-1965 ANNUAL MEETINGS Year Localcion Chairman Secretary-Treasurer 1957 Las Vegas, Nevada M. Clair Aldous 1958 Yuma, Ar iz ona 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 Pan 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., Mex. Rodolfo Hernandez Corzo Charles Hansen 1965 Redlands,'California John D. Goodman John P, Russo 1966 Silver City, New Mexico Cecil Kennedy John P. Russo

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL AWARD RECIPIENTS

1960 Ralph and Florence Welles, U. S. NationaLPark Service, Death Valley, Calif. 1962 Oscar V. Deming, U. S. Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Lakeview, Oregon 1965 John P. Russo, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona 1966 Charles Hansen, U. S. Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Las Vegas, Nevada INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 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 C~ncil'sannual meetings are eligible for publication. Additional papers may be published when reviewed and approved by the Transactions Committee. Pagers in excess of 10 pages a copy will be charged to the author at the current cost per page unless authorized by the Transactions Cormnittee. Papers must be submitted to the Editor within 30 days after 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 84 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, materiels 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 Biological 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 Webster's Third 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: Incl-ude 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 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 alphabetically 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 vithout 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 deelIbedVnecessary, provide advice ,only on contents.

Approved by Council at 1966 Annual Meeting.