DOCSLIB.ORG

Wildlife Conservation and Wilderness: Wishful Thinking? Author(S): Vernon C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wildlife Conservation and Wilderness: Wishful Thinking? Author(S): Vernon C Wildlife Conservation and Wilderness: Wishful Thinking? Author(s): Vernon C. Bleich Source: Natural Areas Journal, 36(2):202-206. Published By: Natural Areas Association DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3375/043.036.0213 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3375/043.036.0213 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. C O N S E R V A T I O N I S S U E S ABSTRACT: Wilderness management objectives and wildlife conservation objectives often conflict with each other, despite conservation being one of six basic reasons for which wilderness is established. Most wilderness areas appear to have been established as the result of political or societal desires, but in the absence of critical ecological thought. In an era of increasing anthropogenic impacts to wildlife populations and to wildlife habitat outside of wilderness, those ostensibly “pristine” areas in and of themselves will become less and less effective as conservation tools, particularly for large, vagile mam- • mals. Impacts occurring outside of wilderness areas have ramifications for wide-ranging animals that use those areas during portions of their annual cycles, thereby affecting wilderness character. Similarly, impacts occurring inside of designated wilderness also have ramifications for large, vagile mammals that also utilize proximate lands. There is a need to re-ignite the debate over the value of wilderness, both in the context of its societal role, as well as that of a conservation strategy. It is essential that wildlife Wildlife conservation be elevated to the same level of importance that is accorded solitude and other subjective attributes of wilderness. Conservation and Index terms: connectivity, conservation, management, social issues, wilderness, wildlife Wilderness: Wishful INTRODUCTION and mule deer (Holl and Bleich 2010; Holl Thinking? et al. 2012). Bighorn sheep are classified as Many individuals recently celebrated the a sensitive species by the US Forest Service golden anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness (USFS 2013), and decisions regarding habi- Act (Act). Some have opined that the 50- tat enhancement for large mammals also year-old Act has been nothing but positive affect habitat for dozens of other species 1,2,3 for wildlife conservation and that it, “may dependent on similar ecological conditions Vernon C. Bleich be even more important today” (Kurth (Loft and Bleich 2014). Moreover, failure 1Department of Natural Resources and 2014) than it was at the time it became to re-establish a natural fire regime in the Environmental Science law. It is becoming more and more evident, San Gabriel Mountains has had cascading University of Nevada however, that wild lands, and not neces- effects on prey of mountain lions (Puma Reno, NV 89557 sarily legislated wilderness, are important concolor L.), the apex predator in that and necessary for conserving wildlife and, system (Holl et al. 2004, 2012; Holl and in particular, large mammals that often Bleich 2010). 2Eastern Sierra Center for Applied range over vast areas. Although the Act Population Ecology has protected thousands of square kilome- In other examples, wilderness designation 5546 Falconer Dr. ters of wildlife habitat from exploitation has confounded or prevented efforts to Bismarck, ND 58504 (Kurth 2014), in the absence of extensive restore bighorn sheep to historical ranges suitable habitat adjacent to legislatively or to enhance survival or connectivity of protected areas, many populations of large populations through the development of mammals are unlikely to persist within reliable sources of surface water (Bleich • legislated wilderness alone (Salwasser et 2005, 2009). This has occurred despite al. 1987; Krausman et al. 1992; Bleich strong evidence that reliable surface water 2005). Wildlife conservation activities is an important factor explaining the persis- proposed to occur inside of designated tence of populations of bighorn sheep (Epps wilderness areas are, unfortunately, among et al. 2004). This factor could become even the most controversial of issues (Czech more important pending climate change and Krausman 1999; Krausman and Czech and could profoundly affect the distribution 2000; Mattson and Chambers 2009). For and population structuring of that species example, wilderness has precluded the use (Epps et al. 2006). Further, provision of 3 Corresponding author: vcbleich@gmail. of prescribed fire to maintain habitat for reliable surface water has the potential to com; (760) 937-5020 large mammals in the San Gabriel Moun- mitigate the onerous effects that freeways tains of California, despite the reliance of (Epps et al. 2005), or other anthropogenic bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis Shaw) barriers, have had on gene flow among and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus formerly connected subpopulations of Rafinesque) on early successional stages bighorn sheep (Bleich 2009). of coastal chaparral in that mountain range. Coastal chaparral is a fire-dependent shrub Wilderness provides some habitat protec- Natural Areas Journal 36:202–206 community and fire dynamics therein have tion, but the presence of livestock and feral enormous implications for bighorn sheep equids in many such areas affects large 202 Natural Areas Journal Volume 36 (2), 2016 mammals through forage competition, large terrestrial mammals. Unfortunately, statement carries a strong endorsement of habitat alteration, or disease vectors. De- it appears that many (if not most) wilder- the recreational value of wilderness. Leo- spite good intentions, wilderness—or any ness areas were established in the absence pold (1949) also noted the importance of otherwise protected areas—does not alone of ecological forethought (Bleich 2005), wilderness as a “laboratory for the study guarantee viable wildlife populations in the without regard to (1) juxtaposition and of land health,” but realized that many long term (Soule et al. 1979; Krausman connectedness; (2) increased use result- protected areas (in this case, national et al. 1992; Burkey 1994). In the absence ing from their “protected” status (Wallace parks ranging up to a million acres in of certain resources, including seasonal 1992; Klein 1994); (3) increased impacts size) were not large enough to retain their ranges and birthing areas, and access to outside of those protected areas as opportu- natural predators, or to preclude diseases them—as well as migration or movement nities for use by the public are constrained contracted from domestic livestock. Ironi- corridors—large mammals cannot depend within wilderness; and (4) the synergistic cally, long before the publication of some exclusively on wilderness areas to meet impact of all of the above on movements contemporary ecological principles (e.g., their life history needs (Bleich 2005; of large mammals between “islands” of island biogeography, metapopulation dy- Owen-Smith 2013). Further, generalizing fully protected habitat (Schwartz et al. namics), Clarke (1913) opined that, “An about the benefits of wilderness to wildlife 1986; Bleich et al. 1990, 1996) or critically ideal system [for game or wildlife refuges] is hazardous, because benefits to one spe- important seasonal ranges. would be to create such reservations all cies can simultaneously be detrimental to over the State [of California], in close another (Schoenfeld and Hendee 1978). As an example, the California Desert Pro- enough proximity that game could pass tection Act (CDPA; US Congress 1994) from one reservation to another. Such a Wilderness designation does not ensure designated as wilderness much habitat commingling of individuals is apt to be the persistence of many wildlife species traditionally viewed as essential for bighorn of the greatest necessity in the future, to or wild components of our land. Indeed, sheep (i.e., steep, rocky slopes in insular prevent the natural outcome of inbreed- while acknowledging the value of “wil- mountain ranges) in the Mojave and So- ing, which might result among isolated derness,” Spurr (1966) characterized it as noran Deserts. However, the CDPA also groups of animals.” Later, Leopold (1949) a sociological, rather than an ecological, contributed to additional fragmentation of cautioned that, “many animal species … phenomenon. Many wilderness areas have bighorn sheep habitat through the prolifera- do not seem to thrive as detached islands been delineated by special interest groups tion of pipelines, roads, recreational activi- of population.” Those forward-thinking and then approved by Congress for pri- ties, and solar energy projects proximate to individuals recognized the need to avoid marily political reasons, analogous to the those islands of wilderness
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marine Director WCS Finaltor
    JOB DESCRIPTION Director, Marine Conservation and Fisheries Wildlife Conservation Society Founded in 1895 as the New York Zoological Society The Wildlife Conservation Society seeks a Director of Marine Conservation and Fisheries, to be based at WCS headquarters in New York City. WCS has a long history of ocean exploration and conservation, including William Beebe’s 1934 record-setting bathysphere dive and Roger Payne’s extraordinary 1974 discovery of humpback whale songs. From these early roots, and reflecting the WCS focus on saving wildlife and wild places, WCS’ marine conservation efforts currently focus on four strategies: Marine Protected Areas, sustainable fisheries, marine mammals, and sharks and rays. Supporting these strategies, WCS maintains a strong commitment to applied marine scientific research and is building its capacity to leverage our impact through WCS’ New York Aquarium and other innovative partnerships. To deliver on these objectives at scale the Director oversees all WCS marine conservation efforts, including the implementation of marine conservation actions by ~250 marine conservation staff in Belize, Cuba, Nicaragua, Argentina, Chile, Gabon, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambiue, Madagascar, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, New York and the Arctic Beringia, as well as overseeing staff who coordinate global initiatives on marine species (cetaceans and sharks), climate, fisheries and marine policy. The program is staffed by a dynamic and committed team of field scientists based at sites around the world, and a directorate of six staff in New York. Position Objectives: * Direct WCS’s marine conservation programs across 9 global priority regions and all 5 oceans in Africa, Asia, Latin America and North America that largely focus on the establishment and management of marine protected areas, artisanal, and commercial fisheries, and the global conservation of marine mammals and sharks and rays.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Natural Resources and Environmental Constraints
    Chapter 4 Natural Resources and Environmental Constraints PERSONAL VISION STATEMENTS “I want to live in a city that cares about air quality and the environment.” “Keep Birmingham beautiful, especially the water ways.” 4.1 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PART II | CHAPTER 4 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS GOALS POLICIES FOR DECISION MAKERS natural areas and conservation A comprehensive green infrastructure • Support the creation of an interconnected green infrastructure network that includes system provides access to and natural areas for passive recreation, stormwater management, and wildlife habitat. preserves natural areas and • Consider incentives for the conservation and enhancement of natural and urban environmentally sensitive areas. forests. Reinvestment in existing communities • Consider incentives for reinvestment in existing communities rather than conserves resources and sensitive “greenfields,” for new commercial, residential and institutional development. environments. • Consider incentives for development patterns and site design methods that help protect water quality, sensitive environmental features, and wildlife habitat. air and water quality The City makes every effort to • Support the development of cost-effective multimodal transportation systems that consistently meet clean air standards. reduce vehicle emissions. • Encourage use of clean fuels and emissions testing. • Emphasize recruitment of clean industry. • Consider incentives for industries to reduce emissions over time. • Promote the use of cost-effective energy efficient design, materials and equipment in existing and private development. The City makes every effort to • Encourage the Birmingham Water Works Board to protect water-supply sources consistently meet clean water located outside of the city to the extent possible. standards. • Consider incentives for development that protects the city’s water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Landowner Guide to the Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program
    Landowner Guide to the Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program This document provides an overview of the Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program, administered by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and the expectations of the program for interested landowners. ODFW recommends that interested landowners first read this Guide, and if eligible, contact the local ODFW biologists for more information. Additional resources are available on the following website: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/whcmp/. Table of Contents: A. Purpose of the habitat program B. Objective of the habitat program C. History of the habitat program D. Calculating a property’s assessed value E. Dwellings and homesites F. Participating Counties G. Moving from one special assessment category to another H. Landowner process to participate in the program I. Information needed in a habitat plan J. Conservation and management actions in a habitat plan K. Resources counties and cities can provide to assist landowners L. Submission of a habitat plan for review M. Implementation of approved WHCMP plans N. Application for wildlife habitat special assessment O. Monitoring by ODFW P. Amending an approved habitat plan Q. Change of ownership R. Disqualification of a property from wildlife habitat special assessment S. Appendix a. Certification of Eligibility Form b. Landowner Interest Form c. Annual Status Report Form p. 1 2015 A. Purpose of the habitat program: Provide an incentive for habitat conservation The Wildlife Habitat Conservation and Management Program (habitat program), administered by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), is a cooperative effort involving state and local governments and other partners to help private landowners voluntarily conserve native wildlife habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • AREI Chapter 3.3 Wildlife Resources Conservation
    3.3 Wildlife Resources Conservation U.S. agriculture is well positioned to play a major role in protecting and enhancing the nation's wildlife. Wildlife in the U.S is dependent on the considerable land and water resources under the control of agriculture. At the same time, agriculture is one of the most competitive sectors in the U.S., and economic tradeoffs can make it difficult for farmers, on their own, to support wildlife conservation efforts requiring them to adopt more wildlife-friendly production techniques or directly allocate additional land and water resources to wildlife. Besides the opportunity costs associated with shifting resource use or changing production techniques, the public goods and common property nature of wildlife can also affect a farmers decision to protect wildlife found on their land. However, the experiences of USDA conservation programs demonstrate that farmers are willing to voluntarily shift additional land and water resources into habitat, provided they are compensated. Contents Page Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Tradeoffs Between Agricultural Production and Wildlife Habitat ................................................................... 2 Asymmetric distribution of costs and benefits....................................................................................... 2 Ownership of land and water resources ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Management Companion Plan
    WATER MANAGEMENT COMPANION PLAN December 2016 Photo Credit: Left: Lake Shasta, California Date: 19 July 2010 Photographer: brianscotland0 via pixabay Right: Monarch Butterfly Date: 17 March 2006 Photographer: Armon via Wiki Commons Prepared by Blue Earth Consultants, LLC December 2016 Disclaimer: Although we have made every effort to ensure that the information contained in this report accurately reflects SWAP 2015 companion plan development team discussions shared through web-based platforms, e-mails, and phone calls, Blue Earth Consultants, LLC makes no guarantee of the completeness and accuracy of information provided by all project sources. SWAP 2015 and associated companion plans are non-regulatory documents. The information shared is not legally binding nor does it reflect a change in the laws guiding wildlife and ecosystem conservation in the state. In addition, mention of organizations or entities in this report as potential partners does not indicate a willingness and/or commitment on behalf of these organizations or entities to partner, fund, or provide support for implementation of this plan or SWAP 2015. The consultant team developed companion plans for multiple audiences, both with and without jurisdictional authority for implementing strategies and conservation activities described in SWAP 2015 and associated companion plans. These audiences include but are not limited to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife leadership team and staff; the California Fish and Game Commission; cooperating state, federal, and local government agencies and organizations; California Tribes and tribal governments; and various partners (such as non-governmental organizations, academic research institutions, and citizen scientists). Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................ iii 1.
    [Show full text]
  • For-74: a Guide to Urban Habitat Conservation Planning
    FOR-74 A Guide to Urban Habitat Conservation Planning Thomas G. Barnes, Extension Wildlife Specialist Lowell Adams, National Institute for Urban Wildlife entuckians value their forests and Kother natural resources for aes- Guidelines for Considering Wildlife in the Urban Development thetic, recreational, and economic Process significance, so over the past several Promote habitats that will have the food, cover, water, and living space that decades they have become increasingly all wildlife require by following these guidelines: concerned about the loss of wildlife • Before development, maximize open space and make an effort to protect the habitat and greenspace. Urban and most valuable wildlife habitat by placing buildings on less important portions suburban development is one of the of the site. Choosing cluster development, which is flexible, can help. leading causes of this loss: A recent • Provide water, and design stormwater control impoundments to benefit wildlife. study indicated that every day in • Use native plants that have value for wildlife as well as aesthetic appeal. Kentucky more than 100 acres of rural • Provide bird-feeding stations and nest boxes for cavity-nesting birds like land is being converted to urban house wrens and wood ducks. development. • Educate residents about wildlife conservation, using, for example, informa- Because concern for loss of tion packets or a nature trail through open space. greenspace is not new, we have for • Ensure a commitment to managing urban wildlife habitats. some time created attractive urban greenspace environments with our parks and backyards. These The publication can also be useful to A landscape is a large area com- greenspaces have been created not so the average homeowner in understand- posed of ecosystems (the plants, much for wildlife habitats as for people ing the complex issues involved in animals, other living organisms, and to enjoy, but the potential for wildlife landscape planning and wildlife their physical surroundings).
    [Show full text]
  • HOW WE DO IT: Wildlife Habitat
    SUSTAINABILITY @ WEYERHAEUSER HOW WE DO IT: Wildlife Habitat A common misperception of managed forests is that they do not support diverse plant and animal communities — but the truth is our forests are home to vibrant ecosystems throughout the United States and Canada. The forests we manage in the western U.S. alone host more than 250 native vertebrate species, including large mammals such as deer, elk, cougar, black bear and bobcat, as well as a tremendous diversity of birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, native fish and other aquatic species. Many of these species prefer different forest age classes and forest structures, or other habitat features on the landscape, such as riparian areas. Since our timberlands contain a matrix of forest stand ages, along with other special areas we protect around streams and wetlands, these forests support a high level of native biodiversity. KEY POINTS • To manage these habitat types and protect biological diversity at multiple spatial scales, we participate in conservation partnerships with state and federal agencies and nonprofit organizations1, and we support our planning and decision- making with our internal Environmental Research and Operational Support teams. • We also frequently partner with other research organizations to ensure our practices are consistent with the best available science — and that we are meeting our conservation objectives, including protecting water quality and biodiversity, and providing habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive species. • Weyerhaeuser has a long history of contributing timberlands for conservation initiatives through land exchanges, sales, donations and conservation easements. • Through special programs, including Habitat Conservation Plans and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, we are able to enroll our timberlands in conservation agreements that ensure our forests provide habitat features that support at-risk or sensitive species — and still sustainably harvest and regenerate timber.
    [Show full text]
  • Lanfair Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118
    Hydrologic Region Colorado River California’s Groundwater Lanfair Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Lanfair Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 7-1 • County: San Bernardino • Surface Area: 157,000 acres (245 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology This basin underlies Lanfair Valley in eastern San Bernardino County. The valley slopes southeasterly with valley floor elevations ranging from 3,500 to 5,000 feet above sea level. The basin is bounded by impermeable rocks of the New York and Castle Mountains on the north, of the Piute Range on the east, of the Hackberry Mountain on the south, and of the Providence Mountains and Mid Hills on the west. Caruthers Creek flows intermittently southeastward during periods of heavy precipitation. Piute Spring discharges groundwater from Lanfair Valley to an adjacent valley and other smaller springs are found throughout the valley. Average annual precipitation ranges from 7 to 10 inches. Hydrogeologic Description Water Bearing Formations The primary water-bearing formations are Quaternary and Tertiary age unconsolidated deposits that include highly indurated sand, silt, clay and gravel. The maximum thickness of these deposits is not known; however, a boring log indicates a thickness of at least 550 feet locally. Wells in these deposits yield about 3 to 70 gpm (Friewald 1984). Restrictive Structures The Cedar Canyon fault crosses the northwest portion of the basin; however, it is unknown whether or not this fault is a barrier to groundwater. Recharge Areas The principal sources of recharge are likely percolation of runoff from surrounding mountains, percolation of precipitation to the valley floor, and subsurface inflow from adjacent basins.
    [Show full text]
  • Mojave National Preserve Management Plan for Developed
    Mojave National Preserve—Management Plan for Developed Water Resources CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Introduction This chapter describes the unique factors that influence water resource management in the Preserve and the resources that could be affected by the implementation of any of the alternatives described in Chapter 2: Alternatives. The resource descriptions provided in this chapter serve as a baseline to compare the potential effects of the management actions proposed in the alternatives. The following resource topics are described in this chapter: • Environmental Setting • Cultural Resources • Water Resources • Wilderness Character • Wildlife Environmental setting and water resources are important for context and are foundational for water resource management, but are not resources that are analyzed for effects. Resource issues that were considered and dismissed from further analysis are listed in Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action and are not discussed further in this EA. A description of the effects of the proposed alternatives on wildlife, cultural resources, and wilderness character is presented in Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. Environmental Setting The Preserve includes an ecologically diverse yet fragile desert ecosystem consisting of vegetative attributes that are unique to the Mojave Desert, as well as components of the Great Basin and Sonoran Deserts. Topography The topography of the Preserve is characteristic of the mountain and basin physiographic pattern, with tall mountain ranges separated by corresponding valleys filled with alluvial sediments. Primary mountain ranges in the Preserve, from west to east, include the Granite, Kelso, Providence, Clark, New York, and Piute Mountains. Major alluvial valleys include Soda Lake (dry lake bed), Shadow Valley, Ivanpah Valley, Lanfair Valley, and Fenner Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Geologic Map of the Little Piute Mountains, San Bernardino County, California
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Preliminary Geologic Map of the Little Piute Mountains, San Bernardino County, California by Keith A. Howard1, Michael L. Dennis2, Karl E. Karlstrom3, and Geoffrey A. Phelps1 Open-File Report 95-598 1995 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American stratigraphic code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purpose only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 1 Menlo Park, California 94025 2 Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86002 3 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 Mapped 1978-1993 by K. Howard, P. Stone, K. Karlstrom, G. Phelps, M. Dennis, and students from Northern Arizona University. GEOLOGIC SUMMARY Introduction The Little Piute Mountains in the eastern Mojave Desert expose a series of folds and thrust faults involving metamorphosed Paleozoic strata (Miller and others, 1982; Stone and others, 1983). Detailed mapping of these structures was undertaken to help elucidate regional Mesozoic structural evolution. Earlier geologic maps were prepared by Cooksley (1960a,b,c,d, generalized by Bishop, 1964) and Stone and others (1983). Deformed and metamorphosed Paleozoic and Triassic rocks form a stratal succession that was originally deposited in shallow seas on the North American craton. Based on lithologic sequence the units are correlated with unmetamorphosed equivalents 200 km to the northeast in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, and 35-50 km to the west in the Marble, Ship, and Providence Mountains, California (Stone and others, 1983).
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Seasonal Movements of Bendire's Thrasher in California
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 20, Number 3, 1989 DISTRIBUTION AND SEASONAL MOVEMENTS OF BENDIRE'S THRASHER IN CALIFORNIA A. SIDNEY ENGLAND, Departmentof Wildlifeand FisheriesBiology, University of California, Davis. California 95616 WILLIAM E LAUDENSLAYER,JR., U.S. D. A. ForestService, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,2081 E. SierraAvenue, Fresno, California 93710 The ecology and distribution of Bendire's Thrasher (Toxostorna bendirei)have been little studiedand are poorlyunderstood. Garrett and Dunn (1981:280) classifiedthe speciesas a "fairlycommon but very local summer resident on the Mojave Desert" in southern California. Californiabreeding populations are known primarily from the eastern Mojave Desert and scattered locations in and around Joshua Tree NationalMonument in the southernMojave Desert (Johnson et al. 1948, Miller and Stebbins1964, Garrett and Dunn 1981), areas frequently visitedby bird watchersand naturalists. However, recordsfrom other parts of the Mojave and Colorado deserts suggest that breeding populationsof Bendire'sThrasher may be more widely distributedthan currentlyrecognized. Also, the preferredbreeding habitat in Californiais relativelywidespread. This habitatis typicallydescribed as Mojavedesert scrubwith either JoshuaTrees (Yucca brevifolia), SpanishBayonet (Y. baccata), Mojave Yucca (Y. schidigera), cholla cactus (Opuntia acanthocarpa,O. echinocarpa,or O. rarnosissirna),or other succulents (Grinnelland Miller 1944, Bent 1948, Garrett and Dunn 1981). Remsen(1978) consideredthe total Californiabreeding population of Bendire'sThrasher to be under 200 pairs, and the specieshas been placedon the list of Bird Speciesof SpecialConcern by the California Departmentof Fishand Game (Remsen1978). It was placedon this list becausepopulations are smalland locallydistributed and believedto be threatenedby off-roadvehicle use, overgrazing,and harvestingof Joshua Treesand other speciesof yucca. In this paper, we report the resultsof a 2-year studyof the breeding- season distributionand movement patterns of Bendire's Thrasher in California.
    [Show full text]
  • Mojave National Preserve Management Plan for Developed Water Sources
    to Las Vegas to Las Vegas Kin Primm gsto E n S W E H G T G a I sh N G N A M Wilderness H R A L Y N R A I (! (!A A N Clark Mountain )" H #T R D N (! (! G # G (! U (! N R U U IO ") N A 95 O (! Y E Yates Well P O S (! A x N C C I L c M (! F IC G e U H IVANPAH R L l K A E Mojave National Preserve s IL L i R R U o # 15 O A (! LAKE (! C A r A Water Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment D M L (dry) c D C i n ash M 164 O e LL W HI n Searchlight R WK o MOHA at o Nipton W he a Mojave National Preserve boundary W d )" P # Nipton Road I Salton # ### 164 U M ## # National Park Service wilderness E I T Sea G N h E s N E R Y a A A W # R L (! E s L S Spring ng A H V ri C IL ES L L p M N A S 127 ll L L )" CIMA ROAD # Ivanpah Road I u L Small game guzzler B A )" (! A E V # )" V Y S T " Big game guzzler T # ## A N (! S # M (! L )" # (!(! # Halloran Springs #Morning U N # L (! I # ## (! # Well H E # Star Mine # O h ##(!# A ## s ## W (! )" A Y (! # T a H i # M (! CASTLE ## P l sh (!# Paved road lo a N W # A w W MOUNTAINS N Willow e U )" # P NATIONAL t SILVER A u Spring O i 15 N MONUMENT LAKE # V (! P Unpaved 2-wheel drive road I A (!# # # M (dry) (! # )" Morning Star Mine Road V (! I (! E Cal Nev Ari # L Kessler Unpaved 4-wheel drive road #(!# T # #### Spring K (!## S CIMA R (! (!# Mine Ro (! (! # rt a # A (! ! O # a d Mojave Road 4-wheel drive road #(!#(! ( Y C h DOME (! !( H # s Deer ( (! W (! a E (!(! Spring #(! N (! )" )" P W# (! Keystone Desert wash (! I NEVADA Baker Kelbaker Rd nk (! (! CALIFORNIA a (! (! U T (!(! # (! (! Spring ck
    [Show full text]