VOLUME 17 Desert Bighorn Council

Home , Ibex Peak (Arizona), Sheep Hole Mountains, Titus Canyon

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS

VOLUME 17 1973

Desert Bighorn Council DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS

DESWi BIGHORN COUNCIL, INC. 1500 North DecatuiBoulevard - hsvegas, Nevada 89108

A COMPILATION OF PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE 17TH ANNUAL MEETING, APRIL 3-6, 1973, AT HAWTHORNE, NEVADA.

Editorial Cornittee: J. Juan Spil lett, (Chairman), Char1 es Hansen, Norman Simmons, Wi 11 iam Graf Ray Brechbill , and Jack Helvie Copies available by sending $5.00 to Desert Bighorn Council 1500 N. Decatur Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada 89108 Robert D. "Jake" Metherell died on February 7, 1973, when the private plane he was piloting crashed in the Rubyvalley south of Wells, Nevada.

Jake was born January 23, 1928, in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. He attended Lycoming College in Williamsport and received a B.S. degree in biology in 1955. He married Connie Heim in 1951 and they had three children - Kenneth, Michael, and Kathy.

Jake began his career with the National Park Service in 1956 as a seasonal ranger at Acadia National Park, Maine. He held increasingly responsible positions at Blue Ridge Parkway, North Carolina, 1957-58; Acadia National Park, 1958-61; Yose- mite National Park, California, 1961-66; Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, 1966- 67; National Park Service, Washington Office, 1967-68; Zion National Park, Utah, 1968-69; Southern Utah Group, Cedar City, Utah, 1969-73.

Jake was extremely likeable and very much a gentleman. He was a man of high principles and had a deep cormnitment to the perpetuation of resource values for use of future generations. Perhaps his outstanding attribute was the ability to understand and to motivate people to work together for a common goal. Cooperative relations between personnel of various agencies and interest groups were invariabl: at a high level wherever Jake was stationed.

Jake long had a love for and an interest in bighorn sheep. Upon arrival in southe: Utah in 1968, he became intrigued with the possibility of reintroducing desert bighorn sheep i~ltuZion National Park. Restoration of this magnificent animal had been considered for many years, but nothing had ever been accomplished. Jake begar

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS discussing :he proposal with various authorities within the Utah Divisio? of Wildlife Reiources, Nevada Fish and Game Department, National Park Service, Bureau of L:ind Management, and with local interest individuals and groups. Habitat appiared to be suitable for sheep and interzst was positive. A 1.20- acre enclos::re was completed in Zion Canyon in 1970 near the North Fork of the Virgin .:iver. Availability of desert bighorn naw became the critical. factor. Finally in :973, 12 animals (5 ewes, 4 lambs, and 3 rams) were captured at the Lake Mead N; tional Recreation Area in Nevada and transported to the relesse site in Zion Par!.. Survival has,been good and 2 lambs were born in December cf 1973, indicating that the population has adjusted to the new conditions.

While the reintroduction of desert bighorn sheep into Zion National Park is an accomplishment for all concerned, it is particularly a tribute to ,Jake's interest in the species, his persistence for accomplishment, and most import- antly in his unique ability to get people of diverse backgrounds and management philosophies to cooperate in a common goal.

Jake will be missed by all who knew him.

?aul W. Shields Division of Wildlife Management U.S. Forest Service Ogden, Utah 84401

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page NEVADA'S DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP -- 1972 ...... Jack R. Cooper 1 and Robert McQuivey A CALIFORNIA BIGHORN TRANSPLANT ON THE CHARLES SHELDON ANTELOPE RANGE IN NEVADA ... W. D. "Pete" Carter OVIS-ON-THE-ROCKS ...WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM My FRIENDS ...... 'James A. Blaisdell CALIFORNIA ' S BIGIIORN MANAGEMENT PLAN...... Richard A. Weaver HABITAT MANAGEMENT ON THE TROY BIGHORN RANGE, NEVADA ....Jerry Reese and Garth Baxter DISEASE LOSSES IN NEVADA BIGHORN ...... Robert E.L. Taylor ANALYSIS OF BIGHORN HABITAT IN THE SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS ...... Jerome T. Light, Jr. TIME-LAPSE PHOTOGRAPHY CENSUS OF BIGHORNS AT THE DESERT NATIONAL WILDLIFE RANGE ..... George M. Constantino CAPTURE AND CARE OF FOUR SPECIES OF MOUNTAIN SHEEP ...... r...... Edward N. Lacey THE DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP OF ANZA-BORREGO DESERT STATE PARK ...... Mark C. Jorgensen and Robert E. Turner, Jr. PANEL ON CURRENT BURRO STATUS IN BIGHORN RANGES PANEL INTRODUCTION ...... James A. Blaisdell BURRO VERSUS BIGHORN ...... Richard A. Weaver BURRO MANAGEMENT AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ...... Francis "Jake" Jacot THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE'S ROLE REGARDING BURROS ...... Dell 0. Clark THE 1971 WILD HORSE AND BURRO ACT ...... Roscoe E. Ferris SELECTIVE EXCLUSION FENCING IN WILD BURRO AND BIGHORN SHEEP MANAGEMENT ...... Edward Cleary KARYOTYPE AND HEMOGLOBIN PATTERN OF NELSON ' S DESERT BIGHORN (Ovis- canadensis nelsoni) ...... Thomas D. Bunch, Warren C. Foote and J. Juan Spillett PROGRESS AT ARAVAIPA ...... Robert K. Weaver SURVEY OF POTENTIAL BIGHORN HABITATS ON NATIONAL RESOURCE LAND IN THE SOUTHWEST ...... Jim Yoakum GUIDELINES FOR CAPTURING AND RE -ESTABLISHING DESERT BIGHORNS... Lanny 0. Wilson, Jerry Day, Jack Helvie, Gerald Gates, Tommy L. Hailey, and George K. Tsukamoto BIGHORN SHEEP CAPTURE TECHNIQUES ...... Bill Montoya HAND-RAISING OF DESERT BIGHORN LAMBS ...... Verna Hightower and Gerald Gates SEMEN COLLECTION, FREEZING AND ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION IN WILD SHEEP: A PRELIMINARY REPORT ...... Warren C. Foote and Edward F. Graham ATTENDANCE ROSTER ...... DBC OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES ...... INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DBC TRANSACTIONS...... hack cover

All drawings courtesy of Pat Hansen DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS

NEVADA'S DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP - 1972

Jack R. Cooper and Robert McQuivey Nevada Department of Fish and Game Las Vegas, Nevada 89108

Abstract. ~evada's1972 bighorn sheep hunt represents its 20th season since 1952. Tag quotas were increased from 48 to 54. Fifty-three hunters harvested 21 rams, or a 39.6% success ratio.

A total of 424 bighorn sheep were classified during 73.3 hours of helicopter flight time on 21 units in 3 counties. Composition ratios were 70 rams/100 ewes and 31 lambs/100 ewes.

Water developments by the Nevada Department of Fish and Game and the Bureau of Land Management are being negotiated. The Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn Sheep also is constructing a water development.

~evada's1972 bighorn sheep hunt represents its 20th season since 1952. Dates of the hunt were December 16 thru 31 in the Pintwater Range on the Nellis Air Force Bombing Range, and from November 18 thru December 17 elsewhere. There were a total of 54 tags on 10 hunting units, 49 resident and 5 nonresident tags. One resident, however, did not hunt. With the addition of Unit 21 this year, the total number of tags was increased by 6 as compared to 1971. Two alternate tags were issued: one because the original tag holder failed to attend the required indoctrination course, and the other because of a hunter's inability to parti- cipate in the hunt. The latter provided sufficient notice to the Department so that a tag could be issued to an alternate.

The demand for tags has remained high, with 6.6 and 57.8 applicants, respectively, for each residen~and nonresident.tag. The ratio of resident applications to tags available increased over the previous year, while the nonresident ratio decreased slightly.

DESERT BIGHORN COWCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS During the 1972 season, 21 rams were harvested for a hunter success ratio of 39.6%. As in the past, nonresident hunters faired better than resident hunters. They had a 100% success ratio, as compared to 32X for residents. In that nonresidents frequently use the ser~icesof experienced guides, while residents du not, has contributed greatly to differences in success. Unit 24 had a 100% smcess j:atio on its 6-tag quota, while Units 26 and 27D2 reported-no sheep harvested (Table 1).

The youngest ram checked was a 2-year-old, and the oldest was 11. Ten cams (47.6% of the harvest,) were less than 7 years old. The average age of checked rams was 6.33 years, which is the lowest average age since the inception of the current 7-year-old or 144 Boone and Crockett "Ti-ophy Ram Regulation of 1965." The largest head scored an unofficial 165-318 Boone and Crockett points. Two rams (9% of the total harvest) scored under 144 points (Table 2).

Hunter effort during the 1972 sheep season was high. Fifty-three hunters hunted a total of 515 hunter-days. Successful hunters averaged 6.8 days, while unsuccessful hunters averaged 11.1 days.

Hunters reported seeing 1,109 sheep during the hunt. These were: 406 rams, of which 157 were classified as legal and 249 as young rams; 529 ewes. and 116 lainbs--an averall ram/ewe/lamb rai-io of 76/100/22. Fifty-eight wePe unclassified. The largest number (1-8 sheep) was reported for Unit 21, followed bv Units 2752 with 160 and Unit 27D2 with 159.

Since 1952. a total of 494 sheep have been harvested by 1,582 hunters under the tag q~ocasvstem for an average hunter success of 31%. Under the "Trophy Ram Regalation" che success ratio has averaged 28% during the past 8 years as compared to 30.4%, ui~derthe 3/4 curl law. This indicates the current ."Trophy Ram Regulation" has resulted i~ a slight decrease in :he number of rams harvested. Some young rams are r.eported killed and left in the field each year.

The hunters' character as a group changes each year; one year the majority will insist on better trophys. while the next year they will take the first Legal ram they can flnd. The 1atte.r was the case during 1972. Young animals probably will cont i nue to oe har./ested under the present "Trophv Ram Regulations. " As was pcfnted our in ~evada's1969 status report:

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCTL 1973 TRANSACTlOhc

Table 2. Age, Boone and Crockett (B & C), and Nevada Scores for bighorn sheep harvested in Nevada during 1972.

Average Average B&C Nevada Average B&C Nevada -Unit Age Score Score Age Score Score

26 No Harvest Reported 2 7A 7 154 718 158 018 , 27B1 4 155 218 157 018 7 157 518 159 418 4 156 018 157 2/8

2 7Da No Harvest Reported

1972 HARVEST AVERAGE

DESERT BIGHORN COUNC l 1 973 TRANSACTIONS Roone and Crockett scores from rams harvested since 1965 show the majority of the harvest is made up of the 7-year-old class. The average score based upon the largest horn doubled suggests that the 7-year-olds average more than 144 points; however, the combined score for 5, 6, and 7-year-old ;Tams harvested was 157 points, which is well above the minimum score of 144.

This trend has not changed significantly in the past 3 years.

Hunter indoctrination courses have been continually up-dated to train hunters to better identify older a.nimals and to harvest better trophy animals. The success of these courses, however, depends upon the hunters. Only the framework of regulations governing the hunt and how to use them can be given. The final decision rests with the hunter.

HELICOPTER SURVEY

A bighorn sheep helicopter survey was conducted between October 26 and December 1, 1972, in Clark, Esmeralda and Lincoln counties. Most of the survey was conducted during the first 22 days, with a minimum of time lost due to adverse weather.

During a total of 73.3 hours of flight time, 424 sheep were classified for a herd composition ratio oi 70 rams/100 ewes and 31 lambs/100 ewes. The average cost (based on helicopter log charges) was $16.47 per sheep observed. This was $1.00 per sheep less than during the 1970 survey, when a total of 76 hours of flight time were logged. Differences were due to differences in recording flight time and the elimination of long ferry trips.

Total numbers of bighorns observed and classified increased from 336 in 1970 and 1971, to 424 in 1972 (Table 3). The 21% increase probably resulted from better lamb survival. increased familiarity of observers with the census techniques and survey units, and the use of a more experienced pilot. Herd numbers probably have not changed significantly during the past 3 years. Ram ratios have remained at a high level for two consecutive years. Lamb ratios indicate a second year of improved lamb su-viva1 from an apparent I970 slump (Table 4).

Age ratios for male sheep observed during the 1969 through 1972 surveys compare graphically with :hat for rams observed in the 10 key survey units for the same period (Table 5).

The ram segment of the sample, plus one-fourth of the lambs counted during the past 4 fall helicopter surveys, were statistically analyzed and plotted as a linear

IESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 3. Bighorn sheep herd composition in Nevada, based on helicopter surveys.

Fall Fa 11 Fall Fall 1969 1970 -1971 1972- Total Classified 178 336 336 424

Rams 59 112 121 147

Ewes 94 189 173 2 11

Lambs 25 35 42 66

~am/~weRatio 52/100 59/100 70/100 701100

~amb we Ra tio 271100 18/100 241100 3 11100

% Legal Rams 23.7 22.0 20.0 32.0

Average Group Size 3.40 3.14 3.48 4.28

regression. The mortality rate in Nevada bighorn sheep populations appears to be linear. The r value (-.926) represented on Tables 6 and 7 and Figure 1 shows the closeness of fit.

Population losses appear to occur at a constant rate with respect to age class. The regression equation (Y = 5.99 + 83.24,based on total numbers) is a numerical value representing the line.

The regression line passes through the Y axis at 83.24 and the X axis at 12.9 (Figure 2). In a normal interpretation it could be expected that at age class 12.9 years no sheep would be left in the population. However, due to sampling bias (i.e. grouping all animals 10 years and older), this interpretation would not ap,ply here.

It appears heaviest mortality occurs in young animals prior to the fall of their first year. Once an animal lives through the summer (i.e. is about 6 months old) its chances of survival are good. Plotted separately for each year, the information does no- show the relationship nearly as well as does grouping all 4 years' data. This mdoubtedly is due to sample size.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 4. Age in years of male bighorn sheep observed in all Nevada units (1969-1972).

Percent Composition by Year for Age Classes of Male Sheep Observed (1969-1971).

Year Age Class

0.5 (Lamb) 1- -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10+

Fall 1969 14.8 18.3 14.1 11.3 4.9 13.4 6.3 6.3 7.8 2.1 .7 Fall 1970 13.2 9.3 13.9 20.2 9.3 7.7 7.0 5.4 10.1 2.3 1.6 Fall 1971 17.4 15.9 10.1 11.6 8.7 13.0 2.9 7.3. 5.8 2.9 4.4

Age Class of Male Sheep Observed During the Fall of 1972 Age 0.5 (Lamb) 1- -2 -3 -4 5- -6 -7 -8 - 9 -10+ -Total No. 33 10 16 17 25 18 14 19 14 8 6 180

Percent 18.3 5.5 . 8.9 9.4 13.9 10.0 7.8 10.6 7.8 4.4 3.3

X n x

\ \

avg .- x ------, Highs & Lows x X

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 5. Age in years of male bighorn sheep observed in 10 Nevada survey units.

Age Class of Male Sheep Observed in 1972

Age 0.5 (Lamb) -1 -2 -3 -4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ Tota: ------. No. 26.5 10 13 15 18 9 12 13 12 5 4 .137.i

Percent 19.3 7.3 9.5 10.9 13.1 6.5 8.7 9.5 8.7 3.6 2.9

Percent Composition by Year for Age Classes of Male Sheep Observed in the 10 Key Units (1969-1971).

Age 0.5 (Lamb) 1 -2 -3

Fall 1969 18.3

Fall 1970 13.8

Fall 1971 10.0

4-yr. Avg. 15.8

4-yr. avg, 1972 ------4-yr, Highs 6c Lows X Table 6. Calculation of r value and regression equation representing the mortality rate of 520 desert bighorn sheep over a 4-year period (1969-1972).

Age C~SS* Percent ir! LI'L-vnnrz-i .,.UL.-LVL. 9 + i nn Squares of Prdrrcts nf (Years) Population From Mean Deviation Deviations X Y X Y x2 y2 XY

urns 66

:cans 6

Y = y + sxy (X - x) Fz

*The age classes represented are coded to facilitate computations, i.e. 1 = lambs, 2 = yearlings, etc.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 7. Calculation of r value and regression equation repres enting the mortality rate of 520 desert bighorn sheep over a-4-year period (1969-1972).

Age classk Number of Deviation Squares of Products of

(Yearsj ' . Animals from Piean 2eviat,loiia nn7~iUL v a-uI tiC A nncuAAU X Y X Y x2 y2 xY

Sums 66 520 0 0 110 4606.19 -659 0

Means 6 47.3

Y = y + Sxy (X - x) Sx2

:bThe age classes represented are coded to facilitate computations i.e. 1 = lambs, 2 = yearlings, etc.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS

The average age for all male sheep sampled (520) was 3.73 years. A most interesting statistical inference is that 21% of the male population is legally huntable by age. By Nevada regulations, a legal ram is a ''trophy ram, desert bighorn sheep at least . 7 years old or with a Boone and Crockett score of 144 points, using the horn with the most points doubled." If the number of younger animals that are legal by Boone and Crockett scores are arbitrarily added, a surprisingly large percentage of the male population is huntable.

Several possible sample biases should be considered: (1) the assumption that 50% of the lambs sampled are males, (2) mortality rates are similar for male and female lambs, (3) the difficulty of aging younger (3 and 4 year old) and very old rams, (4) the use of new observers, (5) proper coverage of units to obtain a representative sample.

Six mountain range units were added to the units inventoried to evaluate population trends a~dto compile data on abundance, distribution and composition. These were the Monte Cristo Range, East Mormon Mountains, Crescent Peak Range. Iceberg Canyon and Hiller Mountain areas along the upper part of Lake Mead and the southwestern part of the Sheep Range in conjunction with the Desert Game Range. The first 3 units were classified as narginal sheep habitat, limited to use during short periods of extreme snow condition when sheep are forced out to lower elevations, seeking escape cover, or following migration routes. Units along the lake appeared to be abandoned during the fall and winter periods, but showed signs of heavy use.

A total of 86 sheep were observed on the Boulder Beach leach fields between July 12 and 14, 1972. Classifications indicate a ratio of 15 rams/100 ewes161 lambs. Ground and helicopter counts in the River Mountains unit are compared in Table 8.

WATER DEVELOPMENTS

The Nevada Fish and Game Department and the Bureau of Land Management have negotiated to develop and construct 4 or 5 watering devices which should benefit and extend bighorn sheep ranges. The Department will furnish the materials and the Bureau will install the equipment.

The Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn has undertaken the construction of a LO-foot-high x 18-foot-wide dam in the Muddy Mountain. It is patterned after the self-cleaning dams constructed in Arizona. The Fraternity will provide all of the materials and manpower f.xits construction. It is expected tha-t this dam will extend the range and season during which sheep can utilize an area which previously has gone dry early in the summer.

DESERT BT GHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 8. Comparisons of ground and helicopter counts in the River Mountains (Boulder Beach) Nevada (1969-1972).

-.1969 Ground 22 37 9 88 59/100/24 Helicopter* 1 4 2 7 25/100/50 -1970 Ground 22 58 21 115 331 100133 Helicopter 20 25 3 48 80/100/12 -1971 Ground 27 66 36 Helicopter 19 18. 8 -1972 Ground 6 55 25 Helicopter 16 19 4

Sums :

Ground 77 2 16 91 Helicopter 56 66 17

Means : Ground 19.25 54 22.75 Helicopter 14.0 16.5 4.25

*Samples too small to be valid.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS A CALIFORNIA BIGHORN TRANSPLANT ON THE CHARLES SHELDON ANTELOPE RANGE IN NEVADA

W. D. "Pete" Carter, Refuge Manager Sheldon-Hart Mountain-Modoc Refuges Lakeview, Oregon 97630

Abstract. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service constructed a 1700-acre enclosure on the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range in 1966 for the purpose of re-establishing California bighorns (Ovis canadensis californiana, Douglas) in northwestern Nevada. Eight bighorns were captured on the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge in southeastern Oregon and moved to the Nevada enclosure in 1968. By 1972, there had been one known mortality '(an adult ewe) and 15 lambs had been produced. Releases outside the enclosure are anticipated in 1974.

Previous authsrs have documented the historic range of the California bighorn (Ovis canadensis californiana, Douglas) to be the general area from Williams Lake, British Columbia, southward through eastern Washington and Oregon, south- . gestern Idaho, northwestern Nevada and down the Sierre Nevadas of California to the Bishop area. They also have established that by the early 1900's California bighorns had disappeared from most of their native range. A few persisted in the Sierra Nevadas and the British Columbia population continued to survive (Sugden, 1961; Seton, 1929).

3ne of,the earliest attempts to re-establish the California bighorn into its former range was accomplished in 1954 by the Oregon State Game Comission in a cooperative project with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Hart Mountain National Antelope' Refuge in southeastern Oregon. The progress of this successful effort was reported to the Desert Bighorn Council in 1961 by Oscar.Deming,. former Refuge Biologist. Since Deming's report, California bighorn have been reintroduced on the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range of northwestern Nevada. This paper describes the Sheldon project.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 19 7 3 TRANSACTIONS HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Fish and Wildlife Service personnel examined potential enclosure sites on the Sheldon Range during the early 1960's. A fenced enclosure for establishing California bighorn for introduction had worked so well on Hart Mountain that a similar approach seemed logical for the Sheldon project. Preliminary habitat surveys had shown there were many areas which seemed suitable for bighorns. Indeed, Deming and those working with him found bighorn skull and horn remnants in several locations. One of these was on upper Hell Creek in northwestern Humboldt County, the site which was eventually chosen for the enclosure.

The proposed transplant of bighorns from the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge to the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range was enthusiastically supported by all of the agencies involved. A three-way memorandum of understanding between Oregon, Nevada, and the Fish and Wildlife Service took care of the legal form- alities. Earlier support for the project had been given by the Bureau of Land Management, a co-administrator of the Sheldon Range.

THE HELL CREEK ENCLOSURE

Construction of the enclosure on Hell Creek was completed under formal contract in October, 1966. Total cost, including engineering, administration and construction, was about $30,000. A 6-foot-high woven wire fence encompasses about 1700 acres, an area about 2.5 miles long and 1 mile wide. The elevation varies from 5600 to 6000 feet. A 2-mile-long rim rock bisects the area and Hell Creek flows through most of the site. The creek provides year around water, with flows of 10.05 cfs in March to 0.32 cfs in October (Thomas, 1972). Annual precipitation in the area is 10 to 11 inches

Vegetation within the sheep enclosure is primarily big sagebrush (Arternisia tridentata Nutt.), low sagebrush (4. arbuscula Nutt.) and bunchgrass types typical of the high desert. Six Parker transect clusters have been established and 74 species of plants, 21 trees and shrubs, 31 forbs and 23 grasses or grass-like species collected and identified.

Plant utilization samples show an apparent high preference for Thurbers needlegrass (Stipa thurberiana). Bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron specaturn) and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) also are preferred. Among the many forbs, Lambs quarters (Chenopodium album) and the buckwheats (Eriogonum s$~.) appear to be seasonal favorites.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Several other species of mammals share the enclosure with the sheep. The most obvious are 11 mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and an undetermined number of coyotes (Canis latrans) and bobcats (Lynx rufus).

THE BIGHORN POPULATION

Eight sheep were captured on Hart Mountain in July and August, 1968 and moved to the new enclosure on Sheldon. This group included 2 adult rams, 3 adult ewes and 3 lambs. By November of 1972, there were 22 sheep in the enclosure. Table 1 shows the sex and age composition of the.bighorn population from the 1968 introduction until the fall of 1972.

Table 1. Sex and age composition of California bighorns in the Hell Creek enclosure on the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, Nevada from 1968 to 1972.

Year Rams Ewes Yearlings Lambs Total

Survival and reproduction within the enclosure has been encouraging. As far as is known, an adult ewe has been the only mortality, and 15 lambs have been produced in 4 years.

DESERT BI GJ3OR.N COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS It is probably too early to predict the future of this bighorn reintroduction . attempt, but one can speculate on the possibilities. As of now, the first objective will be to release sheep out of the enclosure on to the Sheldon Range. This may be possible by the fall of 1974. By 1975 or 1976, another 10 to 15 animals may be available for stocking other historic California bighorn ranges in northern Nevada. The state of Nevada and the Bureau of Land Management already have been working toward this end on other ranges. All are looking forward to the day when the California bighorn again will occupy its former range throughout the N orthye,st .

LITERATURE CITED

Deming, 0. V., 1961. Bighorn sheep transplants at the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge. Desert Bighorn Council 1961~ransactions.

Seton, E. T., 1929. Lives of Game Animals. Doubleday, Doran and Company, New Y ork.

Sugden, L. G., 1961. The California bighorn in British Columbia. B.C. Dept. Recreation and Conservation, Victoria, B.C.

Thomas, C. L., 1972. Unpublished refuge management study, progress reports, refuge files (Typewritten) .

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTLONS OVIS-ON-THE-ROCKS . a WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS

James A. Blaisdell, Research Biologist National Park Service Klamath Fa 11s, Oregon 97601

Abstract. The October 1971 California bighorn (Ovis canadensis californiana) transplant to Lava Beds National Monument has been gratifying and successful. It is one of the most popular projects ever undertaken on National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service lands. Reproduction during this herd's first year has not appeared normal, and expected losses have occurred. Presently, with another lambing season near, optimism far outweighs pessimism, and more glowing reports are anticipated in the future.

Transaction papers presented by the author in 1971 and 1972 explain in detail the plans and actual project operation of the California bighorn transplant from British Columbia to Lava Beds National Monument. Therefore, this paper presents only project highlights for the past year.

REPRODUCTION

The 1972 lambing season lasted from May 1 to May 29, with 4 lambs being born to 8 ewes. One adult ewe was observed on May 1, apparently giving birth to a dead lamb; at least the ewe which was observed from 12 noon one day until dark, and from sunup until 11:15 a.m. the next day, appeared very sick and in trouble. However, no lamb, dead or alive, was associated with this ewe. Three of the 8 ewes may not have bred, possibly because of the proximity of the breeding season to their long trip from British Columbia, or because they were younger than believed. The breeding season, according to lambing dates, was in November. This coincides with records kept by Deming at Hart Mountain, Oregon. It will be interesting to observe during the next few years if breeding seasons change with the change of latitude, as has often occurred with other species.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS LOSSES

None of the origina 1 10 bighorns have been 10s t . However, during the weekend . of July 22-23, one lamb disappeared. No trace of the animal was found during 70 man- hours of searching by crews. At that time, the lamb would have been 8 to 12 weeks of age, quite large, agile and capable of escaping from most predators..

Then, sometime between August 5 and 13, a second lamb disappeared. Again an unsuccessful search was made. This lamb would have been 10 to 14 weeks of age and even more agile than the first.

What happened to them? The stockmen of our northeastern California and southeastern Oregon range lands immediately blamed the coyote, based, I believe, more on their dissatisfaction with coyote anti-poisoning laws than with facts. When asked (and 1've been asked more times than I can remember), my answer is this:

We don't assume anything. There are coyotes in the area; they could have taken the lambs. There are also golden eagles, bald eagles, bobcats. badgers, dogs, rattlesnakes, and man. There possibly are diseases and parasites (although none have been identified in the immediate vicinity), starvation (lamb), and probably as important as

anything, accidents. , This area is rough--as rough as lava can be. Crevasses also are so deep a lamb could disappear forever.

From these statements, it is obvious that the lambs' disappearances are a mystery.

POPULATION

Presently, there are 12 sheep in the Lava Beds enclosure: 2 rams, 8 ewes, and 2 lambs. With good luck, there could be 8 new lambs during May 1972, doubling the initial herd, which was introduced into the enclosure on October 23, 1971.

MANAGEMENT

Since last year's report, when only the National Park Service guzzler was operating, a Forest Service guzzler has been added. During the summer of 1973, the Forest Service also will add another. It is hoped that by providing 3 water holes the bighorn can spread out more, and reduce the possibilities of entrapment by predators. This also will prevent che problems of malfunction of a single guzzler during the hot seasons. Each guzzler consists of a buried 3,000 gallon tank, fenced apron, and drinker. The Park Service guzzler, which has been in operation for a year and a

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCT L 1973 TRANSACTIONS half, filled up during the fall rains and early winter snows of 1971-72. Since, it has remained within a few inches of full; this is because of the size of the apron, which is probably big enough to fill the tank with one-quarter the average annual precipitation. The guzzler has worked well, and was used by the bighorn during the first very warm days of May. They were observed bedded-down under a juniper within a few yards of the water on May 10, without any use of the water to that time. Water use ended immediately upon the termination of hot weather.

The watering habits of this particular herd may differ from others. They come into the guzzler almost daily, between 1:45 and 2:30 p.m. To date, we have made no determination of drinking frequency on an extended time basis. Perhaps with our time lapse cameras, which soon should be in action, figures will be available. It also may be learned what predators, if any, may be molesting the bighorn at waterholes, in that many predators use the water.

The rams usually came to water with the ewes. Early last summer, lambs generally stayed with a ewe on the rim while the ewes came to drink. Once a ewe was observed babysitting all 4 lambs. Toward the end of July, all came to water together.

Of interest will be differences between watering habits of these high desert plateau bighorn to those of the desert. Studies during the years to come may provide this information.

Many things have been observed in this new herd -- too many to relate here. Eventually, all will be jotted down in black and white, to be used for future transplants of California bighorn.

CONCLUS ION

About the title "Ovis on-the-Rocks . . . with a Little Help from My Friends."

-3Ovis of course, we all recognize as the generic name of the 10 races of North American bighorns. As far as "my friends" are concerned, this is meant to be, again, a salute to my friends in all 5 agencies involved: the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and Bureau of Land Management. Without their help (physical.menta1, monetary and friendly), the Lava ~ed'sbighorn would still be only skulls in caves, not the real thing that we now have. We -all hope for continued success in the bighorn's comeback at Lava Beds. - ..

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS CALIFORNIA'S BIGHORN MANAGEMENT PLAN

Richard A. Weaver California Department of Fish and Game Loomis, California 95650

mrIn 1968, the California Legislature charge-d the Department of Fish and Game with determining the status of the bighorn sheep in California and of developing a detailed management plan for it. This plan consists of programs to maintain or increase bighorn populations, to provide for nonconsumptive use of the species, and to maintain a basic inventory. Specific recommendations include: (1) Acquire key areas of bighorn habitat that are privately owned; (2) Restrict incompatible uses of key bighorn range; (3) Reduce competition between bighorn and other animals, particularly burrow; (4) Maintain all water sources in optimum conditions; (5) Modify fencing practices to allow free movement of bighorn; (6) Correct water deficiencies; (7) Restore waters usurped by burro to bighorn use; (8) Reduce poaching incidents; (9) Learn causes of high mortality; (10) Re-establish bighorn populations on historic ranges; (11) Erect informational signs at select points; (12) Provide films, speakers and printed material to the public; (13) Continue to make counts at selected sites; and (14) Evaluate new data and changing land uses to revise estimates periodically.

A March 18, 1968 State Senate resolution requested the California Department of Fish and Game to make a study and develop a plan to preserve, protect and manage the state's bighorn sheep. The status of the bighorn in California, as determined during these investigations, was reported to he Council in 1972. The Department estimates the state's bighorn population to be approximately 3,500 animals.

Presented here is the Management Plan, as it will appear in a wildlife bulletin now being prepared.

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CALIFORNIA ' S BIGHORNS

Numerous investigations have recorded and documented the steady decline of the bighor

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS hroughout the western united States. From these, it would be easy to conclude that he bighorn is confronted with a very dim future. One bright ray of hope is a concerned nd informed public who wants to do something to reverse this trend. ighorns can survive only as long as there is a sufficient supply of natural wild and areas. Bighorns must have food, water, and space which will meet their re- uirements and habitats to call their own. To preserve bighorn, the land upon which hey depend must be managed. The California Department of Fish and Game is charged y law with the responsibility of preserving the wildlife of the State, but does ot own any appreciable amount of bighorn habitat. Bighorn management then must ctively involve all of the. land-managing agencies, firms, and citizens with bighorn .abita t .

'he first step in bighorn management is to "inventory the stock." This has been done y the Department. The current status, where bighorns are, their approximate number nd the problems they face have been determined.

'he second step is the formulation of a management plan. This "Action Plan" learly defines the objectives and procedures necessary to preserve and increase lighorn numbers. It does not include the hunting of bighorn, but states that use be confined to aesthetic enjoyment of the species", and, "however, if manage- lent plans are successful in increasing the range and the population, limited controlled lunting wi 11 be recommended".

Maintain bighorn at a level equal to the present population. Every area now supporting bighorns should be maintained in a manner to continue to have bighorns. Provide for diversified recreational use of bighorn. These uses include the aesthetic enjoyment of viewing and photographing bighorn. Hunting is prohibited by law and will not be recommended unless long range management programs increase the population enough to warrant asking for a change in the law. Provide for scientific and educational use of bighorn. Public awareness of bighorns and their problems is desirable to gain the understanding and desire in the public to maintain the resource. Scientific research is needed to provide many of the unknowns that, in turn, can be used in managing the species.

Provide a contribution- to the economy of the state. This consists primarily of services and supplies required by nonappropriative users. To restore populations of bighorn in suitable habitat of formerly occupied range. This will be done primarily by relocating groups of wild bighorn.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS PROGRAMS TO MAINTAIN BIGHORN POPULATIONS AND PRESERVE; BIGHORN HABITAT

Control Human Use and Occupation of Bighorn Ranges

Bighorn range is seldom continuous. The animal is dependent upon small patches of habitat, which are key areas for their continued existence. The loss of any of these areas by land uses not compatible with bighorn use will cause population declines or even'the loss of a herd. Even if the land use is temporary, bighorns may not reoccupy the area if it has been lost to the memory of the band. To maintain present numbers of bighorns, we must retain all of the present habitat in a wild, undisturbed condition. Methods of accomplishing this are:

Acquire key areas of bighorn habitat that are privately owned, to assure that development or land use detrimental to the bighorn will not take place at any future date. Important bighorn areas have been identified, and a list of private lands within Bureau of Land Management administered lands has been developed. These land parcels should be acquired to safeguard the bighorn's habitat as rapid as money and/or the parcels become available. Private lands valuable to bighorn within the National Forests, National Monuments and State Parks have not been listed, but these agencies have identified them. 2. Options or some agreement to preserve bighorn habitat may be acquired from owners that do not wish to sell. If the owner or his heirs should change their minds, the lands then could be secured. For example, in a few locations bighorns are dependent on water sources owned and maintained by cattle ranches. Cattle ranchin also is dependent on the same sources, but land values may change or ranching may not be profitable and the bighorn's continued existence threatened by the parceling and sale for development of these lands. 3. Zoning may provide some measure of protection for bighorn habitat. County zoning may limit the kinds of land use or parcel size. For example, a 640-acre minimum parcel size would prevent housing development and total usurpation of bighorn habitat. Single dwellings on large tracts, unless too close to an existing wildlife water source, would cause some loss of habitat, but not the herd. However, even moderate density housing tracts or industrial development, such as gravel pits or quarries, would probably displace all bighorn.' 4. Programs to restrict human use are in effect on some National Forest and National Park lands. Permits must be acquired before entering wilderness areas, and party size restricted. Camping locations are limited. The Inyo National Forest has established the California Bighorn Sheep Zoological Area, with the following regulations: (1) A permit is required to enter or pass through the area, (2) No grazing of recreational pack or saddle stock, (3) No dis- charge of fire arms, (4) Overnight camping is prohibited. In addition, the

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Zoological Area has been withdrawn from mineral entry. Trails will not be constructed in the area, existing trails will have minimum maintenance and recreational development will not be made within or adjacent to the area. These may seem to be stringent restrictions of public land. However, it was felt to be necessary as the areas where California bighorn are absent or are rarely seen are the areas of heaviest recreational use. Since this is a rare species, a "fail-safe" approach was used and has public support. Other areas may require this kind of protection as outdoor use of bighorn ranges increases. 5. Limit camping. The Fish and Game Code states: For the preservation, protection and restoration of mountain sheep and other birds and mammals in arid regions of the state, the commission in cooperation with the agency authorized to manage the land, may prohibit any activity, including but not limited to camping, in the vicinity of waterholes, springs, seeps and other watering places which are on public lands. The Department may enter into agreements with other state or federal agencies controlling public lands for the purpose of posting such an area. Under authority of the above code, camping is prohibited within 200 feet of specified waters. Camping is defined as: establishing or occupying a camp; resting; picnicking; sleeping, or parking or occupying any motor vehicle or trailer; or engaging in recreational activities for a period of more than 30 minutes. The list of sites included are locations that can be driven to or near and are bighorn and other wildlife water sources. As the Department makes additional~waterdevelopments or as roads are created for recreation, mining or other purposes, additional sites will be submitted to the commission. Enforcing this regulation and maintaining the posting will be a*responsibility of Department regional personnel. Enforcement problems and effectiveness of the regulations can be assessed after it has been in effect for two or more years.

Reduce Competition Between Bighorn and Other Species

Burro: Domestic and feral livestock and other wildlife compete with bighorns for food, uater, or space to varying degrees. The only serious competitor requiring an action program at present is the feral burro. Burros require three times as much water as bighorn. We have never found burros to range more than 8 miles from a water source, and during the hot dry season their range is restricted to the vicinity of a water source. This is the center of competition with bighorn, as they are dependent on the same water source. At small springs or seeps or "tinajas" where the wa.ter supply is limited, competition is very serious. Burros also compete for forage. Bighorn prefer grass and all ranges with good bighorn populations have good stands of perennial grasses. This grass is often eliminated within the range of the burro. Competition also exists for space. The burro is the dominant creature on its ranges. At springs, burros will loaf in the vicinity of the water and bighorn will not come to water while they are present.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Tabie i iists water sources where burros compete with bighorns. Sites in Bath Valley National Monument are not included. Areas adjacent to the Colorado giver also are problem areas. Burros water at the river and graze heavily in the adjacent . mountains. Only one location has been found on the California side of the river where bighorn water regularly.

The feral burrow was given full protection in California by the Legislature in 1953. In 1971, the U.S. Congress made it a federal offense, with penalties up to $2,000.00 for harassing, capturing, killing or selling wild burros from public lands. This act also provided for establishing an advisory board to make recommendations on burro management and protection. The Department will provide information and assist in developing management and protection plans. A sample management plan has been developed for Northeastern San Bernardino County. An interagency burro committee also developed a model management plan for the Clark Mountain Area, San Bernardino County. 'The National Park Service has a burro management plan for the Death Valley National Monument. However, none of these plans have been implemented, but they are available for inclusion or assistance in developing management plans by federal agencies.

Management undoubtedly will mean control of burro numbers in some locations. Public support also must be obtained for any program that is developed. To get public suppo- the public must understand the need for reduction in numbers. This can be done, in part, by press releases, feature stories, talks and film presentations.

Within the framework of the existing laws it is possible to control burro numbers. Burro management plans-and guidelines must be developed. An evaluation should be part of the reduction program. Range forage transects and waterhold counts can be employed to measure effects of the program. A suitable area for a pilot study on intensive management is the area between Vinegra Wash and Gavilan Wash, 1Gerial County. This would include extensive development of additional waters after burro numbers have been reduced. Any water development that would benefit bighorn sheep would result in increasing the carrying capacity and/or the range of the feral burro to the detriment af the bighorn, unless burro control was initiated first.

Possible areqs of bighorn and big game conf'ict have been investigated. There was no evidence that bighorn and big game animals are now in serious conflict to the extent that bighorn may be effected- However, some areas bear watching, as the situation could change.

Elk: 7 Owens Valley e ~k r +l!ge onto the margin of one bighorn wintering area. If elk increase substantially, there would be conflict on the bighorn range.

DESERT BIGHC a COUNC I L 19 73 TRANSACTIONS Table 1. Areas in California where feral burros compete with bighorns.

San Diego County None

~mperialCounty Chocolate Mountains Tank, unnamed SWk NEk Sec34 T12S R21E 39 Stick Tank SWk SWk Sec 3 T13S R21E Willow Spring Tank N% Sec 5 T13S R21E Indian Writing Tank NWk NWk SeclO T13S R21E Tank, unnamed NEk NEk Sec 9 T13S R21E Tank, unnamed NWk NWk Sec 9 T13S R21E Arrowweed Tanks SEk SE* Sec20 TllS R21E Tank, unnamed NWk NWk Sec31 T12S R21E Rainbow Tank NW* NE~Sec35 TllS R21E Blue Mountain Spring NEk NWk Sec28 T12S R17E

Riverside County None

San Bernardino County Granite Mountains Burro Spring NWk SWk Sec 7 T8N R12E Sidedraw Spring SWk NEk Secl5 T8N R12E Basalt Spring NEk NEk Sec22 T8N R12E Bighorn Basin SEk SWk Sec35 T9N R12E Lower Bighorn Basin NE~NWk Sec35 T9N R12E Dike Spring SW~NEk Sec26 T9N R12E

Providence Mountains Winston Basin Secl and 12 T9S R13E and Sec7 T9S R14E Golds tone Spring SEk SWk Sec31 TlON R14E Halloman Spring NEk NEk Sec 5 T9N R14E Spring, unnamed SWk sE~Sec32 TlON R14E Vulcan Mine Pit SEk SWk Sec30 TlON R14E Finger Rock Spring SEk NW2 Sec30 TlON R14E Sheep Spring NEk sW~Sec24 TlON R13E Cornfield Spring NWk SWk Secl2 TlON R13E Woods Spring NWk SE~Sec 3 TllN R15E

Dead Mountains Red Spring

C heme huev; Mount a ins 15 Tanks SWk NWk and NW* SWk Secl T6N R23E Parrish Spring SE~SW~ Sec22 T6N R23E Wild Cat Spring SEk NEk Secl5 T6N R23E

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS -, Table 1. Areas in California where feral burros compete with bighorns (continued).

Inyo County Hunter 'riountain Area 'Dodd Springs ) unsurveyed Grapevine Canyons )

Panamint Mountain (West Side) Hall Canyon Happy Canyon Southpark Canyon Red lands Canyon Golar Wash

Deer : Deer and bighorn use the same water sources in some desert locations. If a water shortage exists and competition with bighorn is determined to be adversely depressing the bighorn population, hunting pressure can be directed to reduce the deer populatior Deer and bighorn coexist in the following mountain ranges: White, Tnyo, Last Chance, Panamint, Grapevine, Coso, Kingston, Clark, New York, Providence, Granite, Chuckwall2 Chocolate, San Gabriel, San Bernardino, Little San Bernardino. and the desert slope of the Peninsula ranges from the San Jacinto mountains south to Mexico.

Goats : Feral goats recently have inhabited the following bighorn habitats: Buckhorn Springs, Inyo Mountains, Hall Canyon, Panamint Mountains, Martinex Canyon, Santa Rose Mountains. None, however, were found during the bighorn investigation. It is believed that feral goats were closely tied to the areas from which they escaped or were turned free, as they did not range great distances. Although sufficient free water is available in these locations, prolonged drought and poor forage may have brought about the goats' demise.

Cattle: Feral or unbranded cattle that will never be gathered because of terrain too rough in which to work a horse exist in Hellhole canyon, Anza Borrego State Park and Bighorn Basin in the Granite Mountains, San Bernardino County. No conflict with cattle was noted.

Domestic cattle are grazed in various desert locations and sometimes, as in the Kingston Mountains, they graze in quite rough terrain. Cattle usually use less rugged terl.Ln than do bighorns, except at the water sources where cattle and bighorns meet. Yere, the forage is frequently depleted. On occasion, water is taken from the source in a pipe line to one or more cattle troughs in the desert valleys. It is important that open water remain available to wildlife at the source, as this is better wildlife habitat than the lower water trough sites. At a few si es bighorn are dependent on sources developed for cattle and maintained by ranchers.

DESERT Bl GHORN COUNCI L 1973 TRANSACTIONS She ep : In some cases domestic sheep have had virtually permanent impact on bighorns through the introduction of diseases and the depletion of perennial grasses. Plant succession resulting from heavy grazing has been detrimental to bighorns and in some areas bighorn populations have disappeared. However, domestic sheep allotments are not affecting bighorn at the present time. Nevertheless field personnel should be alert to changes in grazing practices or conditions which might be detrimental to bighorns.

Retain Bighorn Water Sources

Five springs developed in bighorn habitat by the Department qualified for approp- riations under State water right laws. Pipeline and storage troughs were installed at these spring boxes and application has been made to acquire water rights.

Water sources used by bighorns are listed in the bighorn administrative reports on file with the Department. Those on private land are listed as "Critical to Bighorn" and have the highest priority for acquisition. The most water sources are on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM has an obligation to prevent unauthorized diversion of the water from the source or to restrict any conflicting land use at the water source.

Naintaining watering sites in a usable condition for bighorns is an ever-increasing job, as mere sites are improved each year. Maintenance is often difficult, as most bighorn watering sites cannot be driven to and are difficult to reach. Main- tenance may be simply cleaning out sediments at regular intervals. One of the main problems is cloud bursts. Intense storms may cover or fill a water source with earth or debris and make it unusable. Checking after the summer thunderstorm season is important. Sources also should be checked each spring to assure that they will be in service during the crucial hot months. illow Free Movement of Bighorn by Making Provisions in all Fences on or Adjacent :o Bighorn Ranges

Highway fencing has proven detrimental to bighorns in Arizona. Bighorn rams have caught their horns in barb wire strands and perished. However, loss of some parts of their range could be more detrimental to the herds than death of rams. Bighorn will use large culverts to cross under highways. Fences adjacent to bighorn ranges should not be conventional multiple strand barb wire. Mesh wire should be used. F'encing should be funneled to culverts. The culverts under freeways should be open at the median strip to provide light. It may be necessary to fence this opening so that they do not get onto the highway. The culvert should be as large as possible for light, so bighorns will not be reluctant to enter. Eight feet should be the minimum height.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Drift fences are necessary for proper livestock range management. In the past, no consideration has been given to what effect range fencing has had on the movement and well-being of bighorn populations. We now know that fences can be built which will allow free movement. Bighorn normally will not try to jump over a fence, but will try to go under or between the bottom wires.

Two fence designs are recommended for use in areas where bighorn occur: Three Rail Fence 1. Posts should be placed not further than LO feet apart. 2. Two-inch diameter steel pipe should be used for rails (rams can easily break wood rails or boards by butting). 3. The lower edge of the rails should be spaced 20, 38, and 44 inches from the ground . Multiple Strand Wire Fence 1. Posts or stays should be placed not further than 10 feet apart. 2. Wires shouldbe spaced 20, 35, 39 inches above the ground. If a fourth wire is needed, it should be placed 43 inches above the ground. 3. The bottom wire should be smooth, not barbed. 4. The top two wires should never be more than four inches apart! 5. The space between the lower two wires should never be less than 15 inches apart

The above fencing specifications were developed and tested by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife at the Desert National Wildlife Range in Nevada to permit bighorn free movement and to control domestic livestock.

These fences were not tested to determine if they effectively controlled burros. It should be determined if they will exclude burros from important springs in bighorn habitat. Burro exclosures also should be at least 100 feet square to insure that bighorns will not be afraid to enter them.

S t udy Sheep Movements

A study is needed to determine the extent of sheep movements, the amount of range a bighorn requires and what are indispensible bighorn areas, to aid in management decisions that affect Land use in mounta~nranges with bighorn populations. Bighorns pass knowledge of each segment of their range and the routes between segments from generation to generation. Some segments of their ranges and some routes are lightly used. These often may not appear to be key areas,because signs are not abundant. But, though slightly used, these areas may be vital to the survival of the herd.

The range areas used during the lambing season are not known for most bighorn bands, and could not be determined during recent investigations. Any given band of bighorn may use more than one lambing area, but each area, whether used every year or not, is critical to the survival of the band. As these areas are determined, the knowledge should be recorded and made available to administrators that make land use decisions.

DESERT BT GHORN COUNCIL 19 73 TRANSACT1 ONS ~ams'" bachelor quarters" were not determined on most ranges. Very often it is possible to find ewe bands in a mountain range, but the rams completely eluded the investigators. How important the segregated mature ram pastures are compared to the rest of the bighorn range is not known. Would the ewe bands continue to thrive if the ram pastures were lost?

Ideally, this precise kind of information is needed for each mountain range inhabited by bighorns. However, as movement information is collected and analyzed, much of it can be applied to other bighorn ranges.

PROGRAMS FOR INCREASING BIGHORN POPULATIONS

Correct Water Deficiencies

4 limited water supply,either in quantity or distribution, is the most important factor limiting bighorn numbers, except in the Sierra Nevada, White and San Gabriel mountain ranges, and the Mount San Gorgonic herds. To varying degrees, remaining California bighorn ranges are deficient in water. Bighorn ranges on the desert slope of the peninsular mountain ranges in Riverside and San Diego Counties have a better supply of wildlife water than do the desert ranges of interior southeastern California. However, even in these ranges, the distribution of water sources is inadequate and many springs have gone dry in recent years.

Jater is not a magic cure-all that will restore bighorns to their former abundance. The following concepts should be guides for those contemplating the improvement of wildlife water supplies in the desert.

If the Last known water supply on a bighorn range has failed, the restoration of the supply is of highest priority. This must be done before the last sheep that knows the site expires. Otherwise, the sheep range will be lost and, at best, probably will require an expensive reintroduction program to again have a resident bighorn population. When adding new sources of water to bighorn range, use a step at a time approach. Add water within the seasonal range of an existing band of sheep. When this source is utilized, add another source and extend the bighorn range further. -Do -not develop a water source for bighorn within the range of feral burro or domestic cattle, if the additional water will extend the range or increase the number of these animals on bighorn habitat. A fence built to the specifications given in the previous section will exclude cattle and let bighorns pass. It has not been tested to see if it will exclude burros.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Specific sites for the construction of artificial water devices (rain water

catchments) are listed in Table 2. In addition to the specific sites listed, ' the following areas near the boundary of Death Valley National Monument need water sources: Uhehebe Peak, Panamint Butte, Pyramid Peak, Manley Peak, Bighorn Gorge.

A type of water development used successfully in Arizona is an adit or tank blasted out of solid rock. An adit (inclined tunnel) is constructed in carefully selected sites of fracture free solid rock which will not leak. These structures are well shaded for minimum evaporative losses and store several thousand gallons of rain water. They are of sufficient capacity to last until refilled by a storm. Potential adit sites often are existing pot holes or small tinajas that can be enlarged. Care must be used in constructing them. Only people experienced in blasting hard rock should construct them and their judgment should be considered in determining if the geology is right so that a tank will not lose water.

Catchments or guzzlers can be varied in construction to fit the situation. In addition to the type with large aprons to shed the rain water to the catchment tank, in some locations the flow from seasonal springs or seeps can be picked up and stored in tanks or an adit. This will eliminate the need to construct large aprons.

The National Park Service has listed sites where supplemental watering devices should be built. The Joshua ~reeNational Monument has begun to implement a program and has built both the guzzler and adit types of installations. A lesson can be learned from their experience. A guzzler built to save the wildlife dependent on Stuby Spring, which had gone dry, was too small. The stored water was depleted completely early in the summer. As a rule of thumb for planning storage capacity, figure a bighorn will consume a minimum of one gallon per day for approximately 100 hot days in most desert areas.

Follow-up evaluations of each development site should be made. These will be valuable in helping design better installations.

-Restore- Waters Usurped by Feral Burros to Bighorn Use Table 3 liscs watering sites outside of Death Valley National Monument used by burro, but which showed no evidence of regular bighorn use. In most cases, they are known to be historic bighorn areas. Bighorn use reasonably could be expected to be re-established at these sites, if burro numbers were reduced and, if necessary, bighorns were reintroduced.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 2. Proposed sites for bighorn watering catchments in California.

Imperial County chocolate l"iountains adit Chocolate Mountains adit Chocolate Mountains adit

Riverside Countv SWk 'SWk Secl6 T2S R18E guzzler *Eagle Mountains SWk SWk Secl7 T4S R14E adit or guzzler Eagle Mountains NWk SE8 Sec23 T3S R13E guzzler Eagle Mountains NWk SEk Secl9 T5S R14E guzzler Little San Bernardino Mts. NWk SEk Secl2 T4S R8E guzzler Little San Bernardino Mts. NWk SEk Sec32 T1S R5E guzzler Coxcomb Mountains NWk SE3; Sec 8 T2S R16E guzzler

San Bernardino County *S heephole Mountains SWk Sec26 T2N R12E guzzler *S heephole Mountains SE% Secl6 TIN R13E guzzler *Chemehuevi Mountains W2 W% Sec 1 T6N R23E adit Chemehuevi Mountains SEk SWt Sec22 T6N R23E adit Chemehuevi Mountains SEk SW% Sec35 T6N R23E adit Cheme huevi Mountains NW% SWk Sec28 T6N R23E adit Sacramento Mountains NWk SWk Secl6 T8N R21E adit Old Woman Mountains NEk NE* Sec29 T6N R17E adit or guzzler Old Woman Mountains NEk NEk SeclO T3N R17E adit or guzzler Cady Mountains NEk NEk Sec24 T8N R6E adit Old Dad Mountain Sec24 T12N RlOE adit Kelso Peak Nw% Sec29 T12N R12E guzzler Clipper Mountains Nwk Sec 2 T7N R15E adit Piute Range SWk ykSec23 T13N R18E guzzler Castle Mountains SEk SEk Sec 6 T14N R18E adit Marble Mountains E% NWk Secl7 T6N R14E guzzler Clark Range SEk SW2 Sec 5 T17N R14E guzzler Clark Range SEk NWk Sec35 ~17%~R13E guzzler

Inyo County Nopah Mountains NWk NWk Sec 9 T23N R8E guzzler Nopah Mountains NEk NWk Sec20 T23N R8E guzzler Nopah Mountains NWk NWk Secl3 T22N R8E guzzler Greenwa ter Range SEk SW% Sec 8 T22N R6E adit Greenwater Range NEk NWk Sec31 T23N R6E adit Last Chance Pange unsurveyed % mi SE peak 5820' T9S R40E guzzler Sec36 TlOS ~40 guzzler Sec31 T12S ~40E adit

*Urgently needed to restore water sources or to make seasonal ranges available year- long. Imperial County Chocolate Mountains Carrizo Spring or Blue Tank Arrowweed Spring NE~NE* Sec28 TllS R21E Tank, unnamed NEk NWk Sec 3 T12S R21E Clapp Spring T9S R20E

San Bernardino Countv Thipple Mountains Colorado River Copper Basin ) no sheep in mountain range and all springs )

Granite Mountains Canis Spring SEk SWk Secl8 T8N R12E Budwizer Spring SW!: NE? Sec20 T8N R12E Mensch Spring NEk NEk See27 T9N R12E Lower Dad Spring SWk NEk Sec23 T8N R12E Cottonwood Spring NWt NWk Sec 7 T8N R13E Twin Spring SW% SWk Sec30 T9N R13E Coyote Spring NWk NEk Sec25 T9N R12E

Marl Mountains Marl Spring

Providence Mountains Toughnut Spring NWk SW* Sec30 TllN R14E Summit Spring SE% NW% Secl6 TllN R14E Lyons Well SWk NE% Secl6 TllN R14E Beecher Spring NEk NEk See16 TllN R14E Cave Spring S-Ek NW~Sec32 TllN R14E

Piute Mountains Rarre 1 Spring Fenner Spring

Clark Mountain T nvanpah Springs

Inyo County Saline Range Upper Warm Spring SWk SE% Sec 5 T13S R39E MDBM Slate Range All Waters Table 3. Watering sites outside Death Valley National Monument used by burros, but not by bighorns (continued).

Panamint Mountains Suprise Canyon

Argus Mountains Great Falls Basin Home Wood Canyon Bendire Canyon Knight Canyon Wood Canyon Stone Canyon

Reduce the Number of Bighorn Taken Illegally

The total extent of poaching and the effects on bighorn herds is hard to assess. Poaching may be either "target of opportunity" or the deliberate type. Deliberate poaching is usually for a trophy class ram. Occasionally a resident in bighorn areas will take any bighorn for meat. This practice was once more prevalent than at present.

The distribution of film, leaflets and reports, plus numerous talks and personal contacts. have made many people aware that bighorns are one of california's unique wildlife resources. This awareness is protection for the animal. Efforts should be made to increase an educational program. An effort to educate people using certain areas is needed. Known instances of hunters taking bighorn have occurred in the San Gabriel Mountains, the New York Mountains, and the Sierra Nevada range, and probably the White Mountains. The Los Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club distributed a give-away information leaflet in the Kratka Ridge area, San Gabriel Mountains, to inform hunters using the area of the presence of bighorn and to prevent the killing of bighorn mistakeply.

Many years ago the Fish and Game Commission, in cooperation with conservation groups, marked remote trails with long lasting enameled metal signs warning people that bighorns were protected by law. Marking water holes and selected trail heads with appropriate signs should greatly assist in reducing target of opportunity poaching.

To reduce poaching, increased patrol efforts are required in bighorn ranges. In addition to regular patrol efforts by Department wildlife protection personnel, all officials in the field should be cognizant of the possibility of poaching. They should not hesitate to investigate any suspicious activity. This would include State Park, National Park Service, National Forest, Bureau of Land Manage- ment and Department of Fish and Game personnel in various capacities. Volunteers

DESERT BIGHORN COUNClL 1973 TMNSACTIONS checking wildlife water for the Department should be encouraged to report to local wardens indications of illegal hunting encountered. There always is a possibility that the offenders will use the same site again. Therefore, the wardens will know which particular areas should be watched.

Study Causes of High Mortality--. in Immature Bighorns

High mortality occurs in immature bighorns, even in areas that appear to be stocked below carrying capacity. Little is known about causes or possible corrective measures. If management practices can be developed to reduce losses of young, herd size can be increased in areas where food or water do, not appear to be limiting. An example is in the Inyo Mountains.

Where populations will not be jeopardized, a few bighorns should be collected for pathological examination. The bighorn population presently using Carrizo Spring in the Santa R~saMountains, Riverside County is exceeding the water supply and preferred forage is seriously depleted. Sick animals have been observed in this herd, which now exceeds 75 animals. The range will not sustain this number. Collecting a few selected animals for study may yield a,wealth of new knowledge on such factors as disease parasitism, general body condition, and reproduction.

A study of captive animals in cooperation with the University of ~aliforniaat the Phillip L. Boyd Deep Canyon Research Center should be continued. For a. partial list of what can be determined with captive animals in conjunction with field studies on adjacent habitats, see "Scientific and Educational Contributions."

Re-Establish Bighorn Populations in Areas of Historic Range

Unlike most large ungulates, bighorns do not pioneer new ranges. Re-establishing bighorns on former ranses is a process of transplanting. The first bighorn transplan: in California was made at the Lava Beds National Monument. With successful reproduction in a 11,000-acre enclosure, the rare California Bighorn will be available for stocking additional sites in northeastern California. The following are considered suitable reintroduction areas: (1) Amadee Mountain, Lassen County; (2) Warner Mountains (at least two sites), Modoc County; and (3) Adjacent to the Lava Beds National Monument, Siskiyou County.

The following sites are discussed as to their potential for bighorn reintroductions into historic ranges: 1. Cobbelstone Mountain, Ventura County. Bighorns were here until the early 1900's. The habitat is suitable and very similar to the San Gabriel Mountains, where there are thrifty populations that could provide stock. An effort should be

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS made to capture family groups and release them to the wild without the expense of a fenced enclosure. Bighorn Mountains, San Bernardino County. There is sufficient area of suitable bighorn habitat in these mountains, which are a part of San Bernardino Mountain Range, to warrant reintroduction. This area had bighorns SO years ago. Existing waters can be improved for the bighorns and additional sites probably developed. An enclosure can be constructed, if deemed necessary. Granite Mountains, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County. This area was bighorn range prior to 1940. Presently there are no livestock or feral burros on the range. The grass and water supply is adequate. Human use of the area is restricted by the U. S. Army. McCoy, Riverside, Big and Little Maria Mountains, Riverside County. There were some bighorns in these mountains as recently as 1946. The area lacks water and bighorns were dependent largely upon one large tinaja. Reintro- duction would have to be coupled with the construction of artificial watering devices. The best forage is mid-range in the McCoy Mountains and the River- side Mountains. Ord Mountain, Newberry and Rodrnan Mountains, San Bernardino County. Bighorns have not been seen in this area since about 1963. Adequate water and forage is present. However, cattle use is damaging some of the range. There is easy vehicular access to the waters in the area. Reintroduction should be combined with developing water sources in remote, hard to reach portions of the range. Whipple MourLtains, San Bernardino County. Bighorns have disappeared from this area since 1950. A program of burro reduction would have to preceed any effort to reintroduce bighorns. Piute Range, San Bernardino. This area apparently never had more than occas- ional transient rams inhabit it. Burros have become established at Fenner Spring during the past 20 years and will have to be controlled before a bighorn population could be established. Ibex Peak to Brown Peak, Inyo County. Transient bighorns possibly use this area infrequently. There probably has not been a resident population here since Ibex Spring has been occupied by man. Reintroduction efforts must be coupled with a program to improve the water supply and to develop alternate water sources. Sierra Nevada Range, Inyo and Mono Counties. Reintroduction depends on loc- - ating suitable wintering areas free from competition with livestock or big game and also free of human disturbance. Much of the former range of this rare California bighorn is not suitable because of plant succession.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE FOR NON-A PPROPRIATIVE USE AND ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS

It is the ~eparcment'spolicy to manage bighorns for their esthetic values. Viewing and photographing bighorns is a challenge and a compelling desire for many. This segment of the public can be accomodated by permitting hiking in bighorn habitat only to the extent that it is not detrimental to bighorn populations. Bighorn habitat almost always is scenic and hiking can be rewarding, even if bighorns are not viewed or photographed.

There comes a point where activities must be controlled on bighorn ranges. Some bighorn bands are more conditioned to the presence of people than others. However, continuous or extended intrusions into bighorn habitats, whether by photographers or others, is detrimental. From studies in the San Gabriel Mountains, the U. S. Forest Service concluded that bighorn use does not occur where human use is heavy or exceeds 700 visitor days per year. This study suggests that hikes on existing trails into bighorn habitats should be limited to no more than 6 persons in a group or per day in bighorn areas during the period of bighorn use. Thus, the following general guide lines are offered: 1. New trails or roads should not penetrate areas known to be important to bighorns. Trails, when constructed, should be below and no closer than 230 yards to areas of ewe and lamb concentrations. 2. Improved facilities, such as for overnight camping, should not be constructed in bighorn habitats. 3. Wildlife photographers should be cautioned about staying too close or too long at any desert spring.

An informed public is an asset to the bighorn. Highway turnouts and viewpoints with information signs in bighorn habitat are desirable. The National Park Service has one at the Lava Beds National Monument and the Angeles National Forest has one on the Angeles Crest Highway (State Route 2). Even if visitors rarely see bighorns, they are thrilled with the knowledge that they exist "out there some place."

The following are a few locations where it would be valuable to disseminate information to the public: 1. Pines to Palm Highway (State Route 74), Riverside County 2. Montezuma Grade (Route s-22), San Diego County 3. Coyote Canyon Jeep Trail, San Diego County 4. Titus Canyon Road, Death Valley National Monument, Inyo County 5. Gole-rwash Road, Panamint Mountains, Inyo County

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Signs at selected trail heads in national forests, nationalmonuments, and state parks also would be desirable for disseminating information. Examples are given below: 1. Trails to San Gorgonio Peak, San Bernardino National Forest. 2. Trails to Icehouse Saddle, San Bernardino and Angeles National Forests. 3. Trails to Cucamonga Peak, San Bernardino and Angeles National Forests. 4. Trails to Telegraph Peak, San Bernardino and Angeles National Forests. 5. Trails to Mount Baldy, San Bernardino and Angeles National Forests. 6. Trails to Pine Mountain, Angeles National Forest. 7. Trail to Twin Peaks, Angeles National Forest. 8. Trail to Baxter Pass, Inyo National Forest. 9. Trail to Sawmill Pass, Inyo National Forest. 10. Trail to 49 Palms, Joshua Tree National Monument. 11. Trail to Lost Palms, Joshua Tree National Monument.

Agencies should continue to provide film, speakers, printed materials and other information to inform the public about bighorns and their requirements. -Economic Contributions The continued existence of bighorns as a part of the fauna of California makes a contribution to the economy primarily in services and supplies required by the nonappropriative user. There is the possibility that the business of guided photo treks to accommodate people with the capital, desire and stamina will develop.

Scientific and Educational Contributions

There is much concerning the bighorn that can be investigated in depth. It is hoped that students and institutions will take an interest in some of these. To maintain and manage our present bighorn herds, we know we must provide food, water, and space that is their own. Beyond these, some of the specific areas that could be investigated which would be useful to the land manager or administrator include: 1. Basic nutritional requirements for bighorns. What are their protein requirements? Are bighorn ranges adequate'? Will bighorns take supplements and will - it affect rheir vigor, production and mortality? What are the effects of trace elements? 2. The effect of burning on bighorn ranges. 3. Experimental seeding of perennial grasses to improve bighorn ranges. 4. Collect year-around bighorn food habit information. 5. The influence of parasites and diseases on bighorns. Remove known sick animals from herds for study and to prevent the spread of disease. 6. The possibility of breeding shee,p in captivity for restocking. 7. Refine immot..Lizing and tranquilizing techniques for moving bighorns 8. Determine :ange requirements for bighorns by radio telemetry tracking.

DESERT BTGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS 9. Reproductive studies and factors effecting it, such as stress, overcrowding, range depreciation, etc. 10. Continued investigations into population trends in select areas. 11. General behavioral studies in areas experiencing human encroachment so that precision can be employed when an administrator must estimate what bighorns will do under given land use situations.

PROGRAMS TO MAINTAIN BASIC INVENTORY MTA AND DETERMINE TRENDS IN BIGHORN POPULATIONS

The Department and cooperating agencies have been conducting periodic three-day summer water hole counts at selected sites in the Santa Rosa Mountains, Riverside County since 1958. Counts were conducted in the Anza Borrego Desert State Park by park personnel and volunteers in 1971 and 1972. It is desirable to continue these efforts in order to monitor the condition of Peninsular bighorn herds. The counts need not be made every year if good counting conditions prevail during the count and a significa~~tsample of the population is obtained. Every third year should suffice, unless there is an indication of some changing condition that will need checking more often. Additional sites that should be counted periodically for Peninsular bighorns are Pinto Wash Spring and Recluse Spring, south of Interstate 8 near the Mexican Border, and Hurricane Spring and Chino Cienega in the San Jacinto Mountains, Riverside County.

The U. S. Forest Service has been conducting winter California bighorn herd counts on the Mount Baxter and Mount Williamson herds. As they are truly a rare subspecies, with probably fewer than 200 in the State, these winter herd counts should continue annually. A continued effort should be made to locate other herds, if they exist.

There is no easy way to monitor trends in bighorn populations in the White or Inyo Mountains, but populations are low, apparently below the carrying capacity of the ranges. Effort should be made to determine population trends in this mountain chain. A helicopter search during the winter, immediately following a heavy snow storm, probably is the best way to obtain the needed information.

It is impractical to muster enough observers to cover every water source used by bighorns and keep them under surveillance for an extended period during the hottest, dryest time each year. If conditions are favorable, the following sites could be expected to be productive and good information gained during summer waterhole counts: PachaTka Spring - Clark Mountain Sheep Spring - Providence Mountains Kidney Spring - Hart Mountain Dove Spr! .lg - Castle Mountains Woods Spring - Wood Mountain

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Sheep trap tank - Chocolate Mountains 39 Stick tank - Chocolate Mountains Weaverdick Spring - Avawatz Mountains Bottle Spring - Avawatz Mountains Limestone Cliff Spring - Avawatz Mountains Buzzard Spring - Eagle Mountains Last Chance Spring - Last Chance Mountains Buckhorn Spring - Deep Springs Area, Inyo Mountains Dripping Spring - Old Woman Mountains Smith Spring - Sacramento Mountains Wes's Weep - Turtle Mountains Pickie Poke - Turtle Mountains Mopah Spring - Turtle Mountains

The National Park Service has selected sites and conductea counts in the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Monuments. These counts should be continued.

There are some desert areas where waterhole counting will not provide a method for keeping track of the bighorn herds. The Granite Mountains are an important bighorn area in Eastern San Bernardino County. There are several springs used by bighorns, but no one spring receives regular heavy use that would provide a sample of the population. Another example is the Sheep Hole Mountains. A remnant bighorn population still exists here, but there is no known source of permanent water where the animals can be counted. These populations may become extinct if artificial water sites are not added soon. In the meantime, there is no way to monitor these populations, except to hike and evaluate signs and hopefully find the bighorns.

The Argus Range is another problem area which needs additional information. There are only a few bighorns in these mountains. A good supply of water rules out waterhole counting. Air reconnaissance after a hard snow storm might be fruitful. Otherwise, a lot of foot reconnaissance will be required.

There are two small mountain masses that have bighorns and springs, but the bighorns are not using known water sources and waterhole counts are not possible. These - are the Clipper Mountains and the Eagle Crags. It is believed bighorns here exist on seasonal waters available in small tinajas. If these could be located, it might be possible to conduct counts when only one or a few contain water.

Bighorn herds in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are thrifty and relatively secure in U. S. Forest Service lands. However, it is important that information continue to be gathered and compiled, especially to detect trends in numbers or distribution. The transects established by the U. S. Forest Service in the southfork of Lytle Creek and on San Gorgonio Mountain should continue to be read and evaluated. However, the most practical way to monitor these herds will be to schedule time and money for helicopter surveys at least every five years.

DESERT BI GHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS These should be done near the middle of May, after the peak of the lambing season, to measure productivity of the bands.

Information on changing land uses, such as mining operations, road or fence construction, should be reported. Such information should be sent to the Wildlife Management Branch of the Department, where it can be assembled, evaluated and used to revise the state-wide bighorn estimate every five years.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS HABITAT MANAGEMENT ON THE TROY BIGHORN RANGE, NEVADA

Jerry ~eeseland Garth Baxter Humboldt National Forest Ely, Nevada 89301

Abstract. Considerable progress has been made in habitat management on the Troy bighorn range since the last presentation to the Council in 1970. In cooperation with the ~evadaDepartment of Fish and Game, field investigations have been made to identify key bighorn summer and winte.r ranges and to determine potential management problems, and a bighorn habitat management plan developed. A habitat improvement program also has been initiated. Seven key watering areas are to be improved during the fiscal year 1973.

In 1970, Ben Albrechtsen reported the status of the desert bighorn sheep in the Grant Range, southwest of Ely, Nevada, to the Council. The U. S. Forest Service and the Nevada Department of Fish and Game then had begun a cooperative effort to assemble management information for this bighorn population. Information was obtained from field habitat surveys, literature review, records of sightings, and personal interviews.

Sufficient information has been gathered to develop a habitat management program for the bighorn sheep in the Troy Peak area. The plan presently is in the draft stage. The draft will be sent to the Nevada Department of Fish and Game for review, and then will be available for public review.

The plan's objective is to provide sufficient habitat to maintain a stable bighorn population of between 100 and 200 animals in the Grant Range. Present numbers are unknown, but the population is estimated at fewer than 100 animals. However. siqhtings in the late 1950's and early 1960's recorded more than 200 animals OII the Granite Mountain and Little Meadows winter ranges. Thus, to main- tail 100 to 200 animals appears reasonable.

'present address: Blackrock Ranger Station, Teton National Forest. Moran, Wyoming 83013

DESERT BT GHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS

Priority will be given to bighorns in identified important habitat areas in the management of the Grant Range. Four classes of present or potential management problems have been identified: (1) encroachment by man, (2) competition with domestic livestock, (3) tree encroachment by pinyon-juniper into shrub and grass areas, and (4) limited supplies of usable water.

HUMAN ENCROACHMENT

Human encroachment into remote areas used by bighorns presently is quite limited. However, serious encroachment could occur as a result of mineral exploration and development or as a result of increased recreational use.

Considerable mineralization is present in the narrow band of bighorn summer ranges along the Troy Peak-Timber Mountain crest. A large number of mining claims are located in this area. Extensive construction of roads and widespread heavy equipment use could seriously reduce the available bighorn summer range. The proposed management program would not allow road construction or heavy equipment use for initial exploration work. If a particular deposit were economically feasible to develop. necessary roads would be located so as to minimize disturbances to key summer bighorn ranges. These roads also would be closed to all vehicles, except those involved in mining activities and would be restricted as much as practical.

Encroachment through increased recreational use will become much more likely with completion of the "Sunnvside Shortcut" from Hiko to Sunnyside, Nevada. This highway, immediately east of the Grant Range, will provide high-speed highway access from the Las Vegas area (a 2-hour drive). However, negative impacts on the bighorn habitat can be eliminated largely by careful recreational planning.

Developed campgrounds and other high-density recreation sites will not be constructed on or immediately adjacent to key bighorn habitats. Trail systems developed wi 11 be designed so as to lead around the "fringes", rather than through key bighorn habitats. Road systems for scenic drives, for campground access, and for recreational vehicles will direct traffic away from key bighorn areas.

DESERT BI GHORN COTNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS BIGHORN AND DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK FORAGE COMPETITION

Forage competition between bighorns and livestock appears to exist on both summer and winter bighorn ranges. Competition occurs primarily around the "fringes1', because much of the bighorn range is too rugged to support domestic livestock grazing. In the lower reaches of the Granite Mountain and Little Meadows winter ranges, heavy use by domestic cattle and horses occurs. Competition with bighorns is most severe during the spring "green-up" period, when bighorns come down almost into the valleys. Some livestock use is trespass use and could be eliminated by fencing the National Forest-BIN boundaries at key locations adjacent to the winter ranges. Funds have been requested to do so, but have not been allocated as yet.

Competition also may be occurring on the summer range in upper Grant Canyon. In areas of competition, bighorns will be given first priority for forage. Range Environmental Analyses are programmed for the Grant Range allotments during the 1974 fiscal year. This is the first step to develop better livestock management programs and will provide the basis for adjustments in livestock numbers, where necessary.

TREE ENCROACHMENT

Invasion of the open grass and shrub types by pinyon and juniper trees also is a problem. Bighorns do not appear to utilize areas of dense tree cover, but prefer open grass and shrub areas adjacent to rugged escape cover. klternative methods for controlling tree encroachment into key bighorn ranges are limited by the rugged topography. Management by fire appears to offer the best solution to the problem. The proposed management program would utilize both controlled burning and selective control of wildfires to maintain or increase the acreage of useful bighorn forage. Selective control of wildfires will require careful planning before implementation. Such planning is being done at present.

WATER SOURCES

3any water sources on known bighorn ranges are muddy seeps, with little svailable surface water. Several seeps are programmed for improvement. Funds were allocated in the 1973 fiscal year for development of 7 of the most important

DESERT BT GHORN (-9UNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS identified water sources. Three of these developments have been completed. The remaining 4 will be completed during the spring of 1973. Most of the spring developments are native rock dams or basins sealed with mortar, designed to blend with natural features. All materials are packed in on horseback, to avoid encroachment of roads into the areas. The completed developments were filled with water within a few hours of construction. The sealed structures provide clean water in sufficient quantity for quick and easy drinking.

INFORMATION NEEDED

Reasonably accurate and repeatable censuses are needed to determine the effects of management activities. The Nevada Department of Fish and Game made a helicopter count in 1971, but found only three rams. Topography and tree cover provide poor conditions for aerial counting. If aerial counts are used, they probably would be most effectively made during the heaviest snow periods in December or January.

Waterhole counts probably would provide good information. However, such counts are expensive and time-consuming. Therefore, funds were requested for 2 pressure- sensitive movie cameras, similar to those used on the Desert Game Range. If funds are obtained, these will be installed at 2 key springs on the 1ambi.ng ranges. Census efforts also will be coordinated with the Nevada Department of Fish and Game.

Additional habitat surveys are needed to identify all desert bighorn ranges in the Grant and Quinn Ranges. Work will continue and habitat management programs developed by the U.S. Forest Service will be continually updated. Also, basic research is needed to determine population dynamics and to further define habitat requirements. It is hoped that support can be provided for a graduate student to do research of this type.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS DISEASE LOSSES IN NEVADA BIGHORN

Robert E. L. Taylor, D.V.M. University of Nevada Reno, Nevada 89507

Abstract. Twenty-one lungs from desert bighorn sheep (&is canadensis nelsoni) killed in Nevada by hunters were examined for pathology and cultured. The majority showed evidence of interstitial pneumonia and lungworm infection. Cultures vere negative for viruses and mycoplasma. but a variety of bacteria were-isolated. Six of 10 serum samples from these animals had antibodies to myxovirus parainfluenza-3. but were negative for other antibodies tested.

The cause of death in 3 bighorn sheep received from the Corn Creek enclosure was bronchopneumonia. One adult ewe died in the Dutch Creek enclosure from a chronic neck wound, with other pathology noted.

The Dutch Creek encl~surein Mineral County, Nevada was established in 1967-1968 to hold desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) for the purpose of providing progeny for transplanting natural areas. Sheep numbers in the enclosure have not increased. despite additions to the original stocking. While some initial problems were encountered with predators, most losses were considered to be caused by disease. Only 1 of 6 lambs born during the spring of 1971 survived through that year.

Plans were made prior to the 1972 lambing season to observe closely animals in the enclosure from the start of lambing until all lambs were at least 3 months old. We intended to obtain all sick or dead animals in a condition which would allow diagnostic work t o be performed.

In order co obtaln as much information as possible on disease conditions occurring in bighorn. the personnel at the Desert National Wildlife Range, Clark County, Nevada. were encollraged to submit carcasses for diagnostic purposes. We also requested that each hunter obtain specific tissue and blood samples from bighorns killed. during the fall, 1972, hunt. This paper reports the results of the first year's investigat i qn

DESERT BI GHORN COUNC'l L 1973 TRANSACTIONS The author wishes to thank the hunters who supplied these tissues and numerous Nevada Department of Fish and Game and Desert National Wildlife Range personnel responsible for the samples arriving at the laboratory in good shape. Particular appreciation is expressed to Kraig Beckstrand, for his help at Dutch Creek, and Ken Heddleston of the National Animal Disease Laboratory, Ames , Iowa, who coordinated the serology and culture work done there. I also wish to acknowledge the help of the Nevada Department of Agriculture Diagnostic Laboratory. This study was funded through the Nevada Department of Fish and Game with Pittman-Robertson funds, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, and with contributions from the Boone and Crockett Club and National Rifle Association.

JWTERIALS AND METHODS

Entire carcasses were received from 4 animals dying in the Corn Creek enclosure, and 1 ewe which died at Dutch Creek. Twenty-one lungs and 14 blood samples were received from hunter-killed adult male bighorns These samples varied in extent of post mortem changes, but most were considered suitable for testing. Most blood samples were well diluted with other body fluids because the blood had to be taken from the thoracic cavity after the animal was killed.

Gross observations were made on all tissues submitted, and all diseased tissues were sectioned and examined microscopically by a pathologist. All suitable lung tissue was cultured for mycoplasma, bacteria, and viruses. For virus isolation, samples of individual lungs were ground with a tissue grinder and 10% tissue suspensions were prepared in Hanks Salt solution. Supernatant fluid was added to 4 tubes of embrvonic bovine kidney tissue cultures maintained in medium,199. The tubes were examined daily for 10 days for cell changes. At the end of that time, 0.2 ml. of 0 5% guinea pig red blood cells in saline were added to each tube; the tubes then were incubated for 30 minutes at 4" C. and observed for hemadsorption.

Serum samples were tested by tube agglutination for Mycoplasma arginina, plate and tube agglutination for Brucella abortus, complement fixation for Brucella ovis, - hemagglutination inhibition for parainfluenza-3 virus, gel diffusion precipitin for Pasteurella multocida, plate agglutination for Leptospira species: pomona, canicola, ii:erohaemorrhagiae, hardjo, grippotyphosa.

DESERT B1GHC)R-N COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS RESULTS he adult ewe was examined from the Dutch Creek enclosure. She had suffered from I chronic neck abcess approximately 6 months before the tlme of death. Just prior :o death, she was observed to be emaciated, but exhibited no other clinical signs. ifter microscopic examination of the tissues, the cause of death was attributed to Liver and kidney pathology. Deposits of amyloid were observed in these 2 organs, rhich were interpreted as a consequence of the neck abcess. Amyloid in bighorns may )e rather common (Hadlow, 1962). Other pathology included excess clear pericardial ~ndthoracic fluid, a small area of pleuritis with adhesions to the rib cage, and 1 small area of inflammation in the anterior small intestine. The most interesting ~athologywas fibrosis of the liver around the portal triads, which-could have Ieen caused by a particular hepatotoxin produced by some poisonous plants.

;our animals were received from the Corn Creek enclosure, although one was a sick rild bighorn taken there just prior to death. The cause of death in all of these :ases was bronchopneumonia (Table 1). Figure 1 shows the lung of lamb number 51. Chis is typical of the lung pathology found in the other animals from Corn Creek.

4ore information was obtained from the hunter killed bighorns, because of the avail- ibility of blood samples taken at the time of death. Six of 10 serum samples had lntibody levels to myxovirus parinfluenza-3 (Table 2). Antibodies were not lemonstrated for other antigens.

?asteurellae, Mycoplasmata, or viruses were not isolated from the lung tissues, lespite specific attempts to culture them. A number of bacteria were isolated and identified (Table 3).

Zhronic interstitial pneumonia was observed in tissue sections of many of the lungs ~xamined. This would indicate repeated exposure to lung invaders such as lungworm Larvae. Scattered areas of lungworm lesions were noted on several lungs, which - mre confirmed by tissue sectioning (Figure 2). Lungworm pathology was limited to Jery small areas in all affected lungs.

DISCUSSION

Since onlv 1 animal from Dutch Creek was examined, the disease problems there is 70t known. Because of the liver pathology observed in that animal, an examination

IESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 1. Summary of pathological examinations of bighorns from Corn Creek.

Animal -No. -Cause of .Death Bacteriology

5 1 Pneumonia Hemophilus ovis

52 Pneumonia Actinobacillus actinomycetem- , comitans Corynebacterium pyogenes No Tag Pneumonia Herellea species

Fibrotic kidney Beta streptoccoccus Pneumonia, multiple adhesions

Table 2. Antibody levels to vyxovirus parpinfluenza-3 in serum from hunter-killed bighorns.

Bighorn No. Hi Titer

K11 K13 K27 K34 K53 L42 L43 L44 No Tag Perchitis

Table 3. Organisms isolated from the lungs of bighorns killed by hunters in Nevada.

Found in Bighorn Lungs Number

Alpha sLreptoccoccus

Pseudomonas species K13, L43

Enterobac ter K54, Tkl, K44, K13, K27

Providence group K50

Klebsiel la spe~ies K54, L43

E. coli K54, K34, K13 igure 1. Lung from Corn Creek lamb number 51. Note major area of consolidation with numerous small abcesses.

Tigure 2. Lung section from hunter killed bighorn which shows lungworm larvae (430X). of the enclosure for poisonous plants will be done by a plant specialist.

Corn Creek probably will suffer from continued disease problems, because of the close confinement of animals on contaminated ground. Low level antibiotic feeding might help control the bacterial pneumonias, which appear to be rather common.

Initial test results on samples from the wild population confirm earlier beliefs that lung disease may be contributing to th.e demise of the bighorn (Marsh, 1938; Helvie, 1370). Myxovirus parainfluenza-3 antibodies have been reported in Rocky Mountain bighorn (Howe, 1966), In cattle, this virus combined with Pasteurellae and stress causes "shipping fever" pneumonia, which occurs frequently. We would expect that this virus, aided by lungworm damage, could cause a similar disease syndrome in bighorns.

LITERATURE CITED

l ad low, J. and W. L. Jellison,1962. Amyloidosis in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Jour. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. l4l(2) :243-247.

Helvie, !. and D. Smith, 1970. Survey of necropsy findings in desert bighorn sheep. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 14~28-42.

Howe, D L. and G. T. Woods and G. Marquis, 1966. Infection of bighorn sheep

(Ovis canadensis) with myxovirus parainfluenza-3 and other respiratory - viruses. Results of serologic tests and culture of nasal swabs and lung tissue. Bull. Wildl. Dis. Assoc. 2(2) :34-37.

Marsh, H. 1938. Pneumonia in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. J. Mammal. 19:214-21

DESERT BIGHORN CO\.'VCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Jerome T. Light, Jr. Wildlife Biologist San Bernardino National Forest San Bernardino, California 92408

Abstract. Bighorn sheep (?is canadensis) habitat in the San Gabriel Mountains has been under intensive analysis since 1970,to gain specific information on bighorn use of their habitat and how man affects this use. Information uncovered by this survey indicates the need to develop guidelines to control human use in the bighorn habitat study area. Guidelines currently being developed will bring bighorn values into perspective with other resource values.

Bighorn sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains normally live in an isolated, rough broken terrain situation. Their hahitat includes the characteristic terrain, accompanied by a wide variety of transition and alpine forage plants, water and mineral licks. Ewes and their young concentrate in 1 canyon or watershed the entire year, whereas rhe rams are dependent upt\~the whole range and use it in a manner patterned for their survival.

It is inevitable, with 13 million people adjacent to the San Gabriel Mountains, that this bighor~habitat will become increasingly popular as a recreation attraction. Current recreation use, hiking in the Mt. San Antiono .portion of the bighorn range, is over 3000 visitor days annually. This amount of use already is having an adverse spaclal impact on bighorn use of its habitat (Figure 1)

Such impact on bighorn use of its habitat was isolated graphically bv a study of the bighorn habitat surrounding Mt. San Antonio (Figure 2). Additional use of this area by the public will adversely affect ~ighornvalues, unless coordination guidelines are provided and implemented to protect bighorn values

Aspects of this study were presented to the Council in 1970 (Light, 1970) and in 1972 (Graham, 1972) With the study data, the Forest Service .low is able to set forti clear-cut recommendations which will safeguard bighorn values under current Land use management conditions.

DESERT SlGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Figure 1. Visitor days use on the Mt. San Antonio bighorn range.

Figure 2. Key blghorn areas on the Mt. San Antonio range.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS PROJECTED SPACIAL IMPACT

Graham (1972) indicated from the study that bighorn winter range will not be affected by ski developments or other winter oriented land use. However, bighorn spring, summer and fall range that is accessible to the public by foot travel will be affected (see Figure 2). The study indicated that. in accessible key bighorn areas, summer use somewhere between 500 to 900 visitor days per season caused bighorn to avoid historic ranges.

Human Access

Projected human use on the study area is along cross-country routes, determined Sy degree of human accessibility and location of projected public concentration areas 31- let-off and pick-up points (Figure 3). Projected,increase in human use during the summer, resulting from uncoordinated recreation use of the study area, is zxpected to surpass what bighorns will tolerate.

Bighorn Habi ca t. Displacement

Projected spacial displacement of bighorns (Figure 4) from their habitat resulting from projected recreation use was indicated by combining human travel routes to listances determined by the study (Table 1).

Cable 1. Minimum distance tolerated by bighorn.

Bi~hornGroup Tolerated Reaction -Minimum Distance Rams 3 - Concerned 280 yards Ewes with lambs 2 - Curious 240 yards Rams 3 - Concerned 120 yards Ewes 2 - Curious 350 yards All 2 - Curious 300 yards

Cable 1 was developed from observations which indicated types of bighorn reactions it corresponding distances from observers Estimates, developed from multi-linear :egression curves, indicate bighorns tolerate an average minimum encroachment listance of 300 yards by man. Minimum tolerable distances varied according to jighorn group sLze and sex, and the number of observers in the group. Ram groups ippeared to tolerate man up to 120 yards, while ewes tolerate man up to a minimum ~f 350 yards.

IESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANLACTIONS Figure 3. Projected human use on the Mt. San Antonio bighorn range.

Figure 4. Projected spacial displacement of bighorns from the Mt. San Antonio Range by recreation use.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS The maximum or ultimate spacial displacement of bighorn use (see Figure 4) indicates that bighorns will be crowded into already occupied range. The final result may be a reduction in numbers by crowding of the population resulting in (1) insufficient forage, (2) increased predation, (3) increased disease and (4) external harassment (Berwick, 1968 and Hansen, 1971). Any curtailment of bighorn movement will result in reduced gene flow and gene pool size (Hansen, 1971), which may ultimately affect the existence of the population.

Combining these conditions may result in population reduction. There are no other suitable areas for bighorn to occupy. Thus, they must self-regulate their population coincide with the remaining habitat.

Habitat Fac tors

Of the 3 limiting factors, the analysis indicated vegetation had the greatest influence on bighorn use of the habitat in the study area. Tt appeared that the availability or lack of forage and plant development state of the forage governed the bighorn movements. This could be interpreted as the primary stress factor governing bighorn population size in the study area.

Abundant water is available, as is the terrain factor.

RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES

An analysis of the study data indicates guidelines are necessary to safeguard bighorn values in the study area. The guidelines "currently being developed" will insure the maintenance or improvement of bighorn habitat under existing conditions in the study area.

The following factors will govern the development of these guidelines:

1. To best maintain bighorn values in the study area, all summer recreation travel routes should be at least 300 yards and out of sight of bighorn concentration areas. 2. Public travel routes may be at least 150 yards and out of sight of known ram concentration areas. 3. Cross countrv travelers should be accompanied by a guide familiar with bighorn habitat and behavior. Such use should be discouraged during lambing seasons (April - Tune). 4. Summer recreation use of key bighorn range areas should not exceed 500 visitor days per year.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS People should not be in groups larger than 10 on bighorn ranges. Summer recreation developments should be discouraged on key bighorn ranges.

To minimize conflict with bighorn values, all construction of developments ' such as electronic sites and ski facilities on bighorn ranges should be scheduled when bighorn are least likely to be in the area. There should be no construction from December through June on winter and spring ranges: nor from October through December on fall ranges in the study area. Areas of major human concentrations, such as parking lots, trail heads, or tram- way dispatch areas should not be allowed within 500 yards nor within sight of . key bighorn areas or travel routes. Timber should be harvested (removed) during the winter months. Key bighorn areas should be withdrawn from mineral entry. Vehicle use on the study area should be confined to existing roads. Helicopter observation of bighorns should be for scientific purposes only; be on a designated flight plan; and be before April and after June.

SUMMARY

During the course of the bighorn habitar survey to gain specific information on bighorn use of their habitat, a great deal of public interest was expressed. The survey pointed up the need for controlled human use of the entire bighorn range to protect bighorn values.

Proposed guidelines will bring bighorn values into perspective with other resource values. As more information is gained, guideline additions or modifications will be made.

LITERATURE CITED

Berwick, S. H., 2968. Observations on the decline of the Rock Creek, Montana, population of bighorn sheep. M. S. Thesis. Univ. Montana, Missoula, 245 p.

Graham, H., 1971. Environmental analysis procedures for bighorn in the San Gabriel Mountains. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 15:38-45.

Hansen, C. (; , 1971 Overpopulations as a factor in reducing desert bighorn populations Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 15:46-52.

Ligh:, 1 -1 , 1970 A progress report on bighorn habitat management in the San Bernardino National Forest. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 14~9-13.

DFSERT BIGHORN COUNCTL 1973 TRANSACTIONS TUME-LAPSE PHQTQGWAPHY CENSUS OF BIGHORNS AT THE DESERT NATIONAL WILDLIFE RANGE

George M. Constant ino Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Desert National Wildlife Range Las Vegas. Nevada 89100

Abstract. During the summer of 1972, 23 of the 30 waters on the Desert National Wildlife Range were censused with time-lapse photography equipment. The cameras recorded 263-sheep visiting the waters 475 times. Ninety-six percent or 456 of the 475 bighorns photographed were aged and sexed. An estimated 85X of the sheep using the area censused were recorded by the cameras. A minimum-maximum bighorn population was projected to be 420 to 580 sheep, with an average of 500 sheep living on the Range throughout the year. Mean length of visit, mean length of time between return visits, and mean group size are given for ram and ewe-yearling-lamb groups. Bighorn-mule deer competition and bighorn population trends on the range are discussed.

Helvie (1972) reported the development of the time-lapse photography census program at the Desert National Wildlife Range. .During the summer of 1972, the first full- scale camera census on the Range was attempted.

Twenty-three of the 30 waters on the Range were censused. Due to equipment failure or improper se~-up, only partial counts were observed on 5 of the 23 waters censused. Such difficulties were expected, since this was our first attempt at a full-scale census. However, we learned from our mistakes and believe next year's census will be almost trouble free.

The census was conducted by Range personnel, with help from the Fraternity of the Desert Birborn. The latter helped setup cameras in the field; and bought and loaned the Racge 2 much needed camera units.

IESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS MATERIALS

The purchase of 2 additional Minolta cameras and intervalometer units allowed the Range to expand its census program during 1972. This addition brought the total number of available camera units to 6 (including the ~raternity'scamera units). A photocell unit that would turn the camera units off at night and back on at daybreak also was developed in 1972 by Gary Swihart, an electronics instructor at Southern Nevada Vocational Technical Center. This unit will work on any voltage between 7 and 15 volts, and can be adjusted to switch on or off at varying light intensities. A schematic diagram of the unit is presented in Figure 1.

During 1972, we also experimented with both Nicad and Alkaline rechargeable batteries. Both have slightly different characteristics with good and bad points. Although both performed well in the field, we felt the Nicad is slightly better than the Alkaline, because it can not be overcharged and ruined. Overcharged Alkaline batteries caused most of our camera troubles.

During the summer of 1972 we switched from 50-foot color film cartridges to 100- foot MFX black and white film cartridges. MFX has good picture quality and an ASA speed of 100. The change increased our census time per cartridge from 3.5 to 7 days, whlch increased census accuracy. A disadvantage is that MFX is a special order film which must be processed by companies with special development facilities. There are few of such in the West.

PROCEDURES

Census fllrns were viewed as described by Helvie (1971) , except the time of day for each sheep visit were determined differently Instead of measuring the length of film between sunup and each visit and then converting with a frames-per-foot ratio, frames were counted and converted to minutes (frames were exposed at 1- minute intervals) The exact time that the camera was setup was known. Thus, the time that the camera turned off at night could be determined by adding the number of frames between setup and sundown to the setup time. Then, by counting the total number of frames taken each day, the time the camera turned on at daybreak c..)uld be found by subtracting from the shutoff time.

It is easier to tell where dusk ended and dawn started when the photocell is adjusted to shut cff only when it became dark. This left several feet of underexposed black film adjoining days.

DESERT RI GHORh COUNCT L 1973 TRANSACTIONS ages of rams were estimated by horn size and conformation, and by body characteristics. We were not able to age older rams by their horn growth rings, although we believe this method is reliable for ageing rams up to 7 years old. Older rams were put into an 8 years or older age group. Unfortunately, we have not found an accurate and reliable method for ageing ewes from photographs. Ewes were classified only as yearlings or adults. Lamb photographs also were not sexed, but assumed to represent essentially a 50:50 sex ratio.

Data were assumed to represent a normally distributed population and were analyzed according to Snedecor and Cochran (1969). All means represent 95% confidence leve 1s.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Twenty-three waters were censused between June 3 and August 11, 1972. Results are summarized by management units in Table 1. A total of 263 sheep made 475 visits to the 23 censused waters during this period. The recorded ram/ewe/yearling/ lamb ratio was 60/100/24/30. Ninety-six percent or 456 of the 475 bighorns photographed were sexed and classified by age.

Field observations, lamb counts, helicopter counts and other census methods have given accurate estimates of sheep numbers on a few areas on the Range. When these estimates were compared with bighorn numbers recorded by the time- lapse cameras, the camera census was found to count at least 85% of the estimated sheep on the area.

A total of 104 mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) made 179 visits to springs. The buck/doe/fawn ratio was 49/100/18. Based on the camera census, the Range has an estimated population of 250 mule deer. Six visits by 5 bobcats (Lynx rufus). 8 visits by 5 gray foxes (Urocyon cineroargenteus), 1 coyote (Canis latrans). and 38 visits by golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetG), also were recorded.

Minimum-Maximum Bighorn Population Estimates

The 263 sheep counted during the camera census was used as a minimum population estimate for the Range. Then, the 25 sheep counted at 5 springs with partial counts were deducted from the total count. This left 238. It was assumed the counts represented 85'7- of the total population in each area. Thus, 238 was divided by 0.85, giviqg 280 as the new subtotal. The estimated 165 sheep using the partial count areas were then added to this subtotal to arrive at an estimated 480 sheep on the Range at the time of the census.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS He believe most adult sheep mortality occurs during the winter months. Bradley and Baker (1967) believed the population on the Range was stable or slightly decreasing. If this is still true, then adult mortality must equal replacement from the yearling class (Hansen, 1967). Based on Table 2, the yearling replacement in 1972 would be 54 animals. It is estimated that relatively little ram mortality occurs between the ages of 18 months and 6 years (Hansen, 1967). The oldest ram taken by hunters in 1972 was 7 years old. Thus, 6 rams taken by hunters must be added onto the to be expected normal adult mortality. This would lower the fall population from 480 to 420 animals surviving the winter. This then would be the estimated minimum population limit for the Range.

The estimated maximum population limit would occur at the height of lambing activity in mid-April and before lamb mortality began to take its toll. Hansen (1962) projected from Range records on file that over 75% of the pregnant ewes dropped their lambs prior to mid-April. Helvie (personal communication) also believes that at this time 70mf the ewes 2 years or older would have 1 lamb living with them. Table 2 indicates there were 224 adult ewes on the Range during the summer of 1972 and 70% of this number equals 160 lambs. An estimated 160 lambs added to an estimated minimum population of 420 coming out of winter, equals an estimated maximum population of 580 bighorn sheep for the Range. bze Structure of Ram and Ewe Po~ulations

Figure 1 illustrates the age structure of the ram population on the Range. Percentages for ram groups 8 years or older are taken from Bradley and Piaker's (1967) population structure for Nelson bighorn sheep. The only discrepancy believed to exist between the actual age structure and that represented in Figure 1 is in the 4.5-year age group. This perhaps may be attributed to film viewers zlassifying 4-year-old rams as 3 or 5 years old. This was not discovered until the film viewing was completed and the data analyzed.

Lamb survival for 1968 and the corresponding yearling survival rates for 1969 do not indicate any abnormally high mortality occurred to this group (DNWRfiles). Since mortality in the 2 to 4-year-old groups is very low (Hansen, l967), we believe this is due primarily to bias in the film viewers' ageing techniques. rhe percentages of the young (lambs and yearlings), prime (2 to 6 years old), and ~ld(7 years plus) age groups were, respectively: 17.2%, 47.5%, and 21.2%. Jhen the frequency of occurrence of rams in each age group was analyzed, the mean sge of rams on the Range was found to be 4 113.65 years. Since adult ewes cannot

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 1. Sheep censused with time-lapse photography by management units on the Desert National Wildlife Range. Legal rams are included in the adult ram column and are not added to other column totals nor the census total.

. , Adult Adult Yrgl. Yrgl. Lega 1 -Unit -Rams Ewes -Rams -Ewes Lambs -Uncl. -Rams ~am/~we/~amb/~r. 0 0 2 0 3 1171 100/33/0

4 2 2 8 0 141loo/ 14/43

0 1 4 5 3 82/100/36/9

4 6 14 0 7 371 100/34/24

1 2 4 1 2 1251 100/50/37

Study Area 25 34 5 3 8 5 5 741 100124/24. .

Totals 68 114 14 14 34 19 20 601 100/30/24

Total sheep counted were 263.

Table 2. Sex and age group break-down for time-la,pse photographed sheep, with projected estimates for the Desert: National Wildlife Range.

7-yr+ 2-6 yr. Yr. Lamb Adult Yr. Lamb -Rams Old Rams -Ram Rams -Ewes -Ewes -Ewes Film Population 20 48 14 17 114 14 17

Percent of 8.2% 19.7% 5.7% 7.0% 46.7% 5.7% 7.0% Film Population

Estimated 39 95 27 34 224 27 33 Range Population

Total estimated sheep on the Desert National Wildlife Range during the census was 479.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Figure 1. Age structure of the ram population on the Desert National Wildlife Range.

Mean age in years

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS be accurately aged. an in-depth discussion of age structure cannot be given. Adults, yearlings, and lambs composed 78.78. 9.8%, and 11.5% of the ewe population, respectively This differs from the adult and yearling group percentages in the ram population. Adult rams (2 years and older) composed 68.75: of the ram population. while yearling rams accounted for another 14.1%. This indicates that even though the percentage of yearlings in the ram population is higher than in . the ewe population percentage-wide there are fewer adult rams than ewes. This may be the result of hunting mortality, since hunting is the only known sex- specific bighorn mortality factor.

Group Size

A total of 176 groups were recorded during the census. Group size ranged from 1 to 11 animals (Figure 2). The mean size for all groups visiting waters was 2.723.35 animals. Bachelor groups had a smaller mean size of 1.10i-O.29 animals/ group. The eweIyearling/lamb group size of 1.96?0.29 animals per group fell between these 2.

Noticeable numbers of mixed ram/ewe groups, indicating the beginning of the rut, show up the second week of July. The frequency of these groups increased until they accounted for 25% of all groups visiting waters during the last of the census. Understandably. the mean size for these groups was higher, 4.66+1.02- animals per group, than for bachelor or ewe/yearling/lamb groups.

Length of Stay at Waters

The mean length of stay by sheep at water sources was 21.14+1.90 minutes. Eighty percent of the visits lasted 35.5 minutes or less (J?Tgure 3). Visits ranged from 3 l-minute to 4 210-minute visits, Of the 104 visits that lasted from 0.5 to 5.5 minutes, 50 (48%) were repeat visits and only 19 (18%) lasted less than 3 minutes. The high return rate and low number of visits in the 0.5 to 5.5- minute range leads' us to believe that fewer than 0.5% of the sheep were able to slip in. drink, and leave between picture frames.

Length of visits at water sources was influenced by several factors; temperature, - water availability, and physical condition of the animals. Most important appeared to be the amount of readily available water. For example, by the end of the summer, the spring at Deadman Spring flowed at the rate of only 96 dropslminute and the storage tank was empty. Sheep would come to the spring, drink the accumulated water and then wait for more water. One group of 5 sheep remained at the spring for 210 minutes

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Figure.2. Frequency of occurrence for different sized groups of sheep visiting waters.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Figure 3. Frequency of occurrence and length of visits by sheep at water sources.

Length of v~sitsin minutes

DESERT .BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS rime of Visits

Blocking the day from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. into 2-hour blocks revealed several trends (Figure 4). From 6:30 a.m. to 12:OO noon, sheep visits gradually increased, mtil the highest number of visits occurred between 11:OO a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Vumbers of visits then decreased until dark. Ram groups watered more often in the morning than in the afternoon, while ewe/yearling/lamb groups watered more ~ftenin the afternoon than in the morning.

Figure 4. Visits of sheep to water sources during 2-hour daylight time periods.

Hours of the day

IESER'I BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Return Visits

Sheep averaged 1.8 visits each during the census period (263 sheep made 475 visits to 23,water sources). In other words, each sheep averaged 0.81 return visits to water during the census period. Two-year old and older rams averaged 1.28 return visits whi le ewelyearlingl lamb groups averaged only 0.64 return visits.

All sheep averaged 2.805.49 days between visits to water (Figure S), based on an average camera coverage length of 7.1 dayslwater source. Of all return visits, only 5.7% had an interim exceeding 4 days.

Figure 5. Days between return visits by sheep to water sources on the Desert National Wildlife Range.

m u ol-4 m rl 3 C k 3 u 2 w 0 k Q) P zE

Days between return visit

DESERT BIGHORN COUNC T L 19 7 3 TRANSACTIONS A one-time return rate of 80% and a mean of less than 3 days between visits, plus the fact only 5.7% of the return visits had an interim exceeding 4 days, supports the assumption that at least 85% of the sheep using the water sources during the 7-day census period are counted.

Competition Between Bighorns and Other Animals

Competition between bighorns and other animals at water sources on the Range was not evidenced by the camera'census. On July 5, 2 male and 1 female mule deer drank at Bootleg Spring between 7:00 and 7:45 a.m. The doe was the last to drink. One frame showed her looking over her shoulder at something out of the picture, and she was gone from the next frame. The following frame showed an 8-year- old ram drinking at the trough. From this and other observations of deer and bighorns using the same waters, it is not believed these 2 species compete for water on the Range. However, the only springs used by both bighorns and mule deer are in areas used primarily by rams as bachelor quarters, and rams are not kept from water by deer. Also, these areas generally have good springs and water is not limited.

This first full-scale time-lapse photography bighorn sheep census on the Desert National Wildlife Range was successful. Only minor equipment problems were encountered. This is the most accurate and complete census conducted on the Range during the past decade, and this method has been accepted as a valuable tool in our yearly bighorn management program.

Most important, the census documented the bighorn population decline on the Desert National Wildlife Range. Hansen (1967) estimated the ~ange'sbighorn population at 1,200. It is now approximately 500.

Hansen (1967) stated that 35 lambs and 15 yearlings per 100 ewes were found from waterhole counts between 1948 and 1961. During the past 4 years, the average lamb and yearling rat ios per 100 ewes has been 25 lambs and 15 yearlings. The 1972 camera census resulted in figures of 30 lambs and 24 yearlings per 100 ewes. Helvie (persona 1 communication) believes that bighorn populations may exhibit a fluctuating trend that depends on several good years of production and yearling survival to boost declining populations back to higher levels. In the past decade we have perhaps had only 1 year of good production and lamb survival for every 7 years of poor lamb survival. This has resulted in the declining popul- a tion trends on the Wildlife Range.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS LITERATURE CITED

Bradley, W. G., and D. P. Baker, 1967. Life tables for Nelson bighorn sheep on . the Desert Game Range. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 11:142-170.

Hansen, C. G., 1962. Progress report from the Desert Game Range. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 6:73-82.

, 1967. Bighorn sheep populations of the Desert Game Range. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 31(4):693-706.

Helvie, J. B., 1972. Census of desert bighorn sheep with time lapse photography. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 16:3-8.

Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran, 1969. Statistical Methods. (6th ed.) Iowa State Univ. Press. Ames, Iowa 593 p.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1968-71. Desert National Wildlife Range Unpub. Rpt. Las Vegas, Nevada.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS CAPTURE. AND CARE OF FOUR SPECIES OF MOUNTAIN SHEEP

Idward N. Lacey, Managing Director 3kanagan Game Farm ?enticton, B.C. , Canada

Rbstract. Observations and experience over the past 5 years with the capture and :are of Stone (Ovis-- --dalli --stonei), Dall (0. d. dalli), California (Q. canadensis 'alif orniana) , and Rocky Mountain (0.- - . -c.- - canadensis) sheep are cited.

The Okanagan Game Farm will celebrate its sixth birthday in Tune 1973. The Farm is 3 private company owned by about 25 shareholders, with approximately $200,000 in- vested. All have an interest in wildlife conservation.

The Farm is located in the lower end of the Okanagan Valley, about 40 miles from the international border near the city of Penticton, British Columbia. It is at the northern tip af the Great American Desert and the valley floor contains true desert flora and fauna. The elevation is 1,100 feet and the annual precipitation is from 10 t.0 12 inches, with little in the form of snow. Summers are long and hot, sometimes reaching over 100'F. Below 0 F winter temperatures are seldom recorded. This suitable climate prompted the start of the Farm for the purpose of raising game animals.

The Farm contains 590 acres of dry benchlands overlooking Skaha Lake. Gently sloping hills lie between the benches, with their rocky outcroppings, shale slides and scattered ponderosa pines. Water is obtained from a spring, which has a high mineral content. Paddscks, which average 10 to 20 acres in area, are located beside an abandoned blacktop highway. The banks of the highway provide good sheep habitat and an excellent \rantage point from which to view the sheep. The paddocks are closely grazed by the sheep.

Fences are constructed of 5-inch diameter, 10-foot-long pressure-treated posts spaced at 20-foot intervals. These are strung with 6-inch page wire with a special tie. The posts cost approximately $2.50 each, and the wire $140 per 2CO-foot roll.

The Farm has 300 an~malsof 80 species, which are cared for by 4 full-time employees, including myself. Admission fees range from $1.25 for adults to nothing for children under six. Admissions surpass $100,000 per year, and the Farm supports itself and shows a modest orotlt.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNC lL 1 973 TRANSACTIONS FIRST EXPERIENCE

Our first experience was with Rocky Mountain bighorn and was a complete disaster. We purchased 5 rams from the Alberta Game Farm. Although there was no chance of an increase, they made a nice display. Two shareholders had heard oldtimers talk of wild rams breeding domestic ewes and were anxious to see if they would cross. Several domestic ewes were placed in the paddock. A few weeks later, all of the rams became ill and died of a respiratory disease during a 10-day period. Large doses of chloromycetin, penicillin and streptomycin had no effect. Autopsies showed extensive hemorrhagic pneumoina, with bleeding into all tissues. Two guanacos (Lama glama huanacus), black fallow deer (Dama-- dama), in the same paddock, as well as the domestic sheep, remained healthy. A mature young bison (Bison bison) cow across the road died. A necropsy showed the causative organism to be Pas teurella.

A pharmaceutical firm supplied us'with a vaccine and a vaccination program was instituted and carried out each fall. No further outbreaks occurred and there was no problem with Stone sheep that were subsequently put in the paddock. The program ended when the vaccine was no longer available.

STONE SHEEP

Our next experience was with Stone sheep in May, 1968. A party of 3 headed by George Lawrence, travelled to northern British Columbia to capture caribou (Rangifer tarandus), Dall and Stone sheep. Dall sheep were spotted from a chartered plane in the northwest corner of British Columbia,but were unaccessible. Stone sheep were seen at mile 475 on the Alaska Highway where there are large mineral licks, a 2-year-old ram and a yearling ewe were captured there with M-99 and a Palmer "Cap-Chur" gun. Two people transported these back to the Farm as quickly as possible. A ewe also was lost when the dart penetrated the hindquarters into the abdominal cavity. A 4-year-old ram and 2 ewes were captured later. The ram died en route to the Farm, but one of the ewes gave birth to a male lamb, which was bottl.eraised by the Lawrences and eventually became a tremendous ram by the name of "Stoney".

On May 3, 1969, a party of 5 captured 4 ewes in the Racing and Toad River areas along the Alaska Highway. Capture involved walking the animals approximately 2 miles and bringing them across the fast-flowing Toad River in a 2-man rubber raft. They then were kept in a farmer's barn, until placed in a large low crate in the back of a pickup and taken to the Farm. A lamb was born enroute, but did not survive

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS An additional ewe was captured at Pyramid Mountain and brought to the Farm. Two of the 4 ewes brought to the Farm in the first shipment died. They were stiff and ' weak in the hindquarters. An autopsy revealed the muscles were atrophied, soft and very pale. It was postulated that they had died of white muscle disease, aggravated by stress,

In summary, 4 stone sheep did not survive capture and travel, but we were left with a breeding herd of 5 ewes and 2 rams. Of interest, one of the ewe lambs bred and produced a lamb the following spring.

CALIFORNIA BIGHORN

Through Dave Hurn (Regional Director) and Dave Spalding (Regional Biologist), Fish and Wildlife Department of British Columbia, permits were obtained to capture California bighorns from the Vaseux Lake herd, just a few miles from the Farm. Animals also were captured from the Ashnola herd, about 50 miles from the Farm. Twelve ewes and 2 rams were captured with M-99 in the early months of 1969. In May, the 12 ewes produced 12 lambs, one of which died.

These animals were recaptured in the fall for vaccination. The sheep were driven onto a fishnet, fixed at one end and left lying on the ground, and the net was pulled up under them. Later, large plywood boxes with wings and sliding compartment doors were used instead of fishnet. These provided better control and less chance of injury to man and beast.

Dr. Albert Franzman of the University of Idaho did blood tests on the sheep over a 2-year period. To date, the sheep have been in excellent health.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN

Daryl Hebert,in the Kootenay area, a biologist doing nutritional studies on bighorns for the University of British Columbia, gave us 4 Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep when he completed his studies. These came from Waterton National Park. The following spring. we exchanged a lamb ram for 2 ewes which were captured under ~aryl'sdirection from a herd of several hundred in the East Kootenay Mountains with powdered succinyl-choline chloride. One ewe dropped a lamb shortly after capture. The other apparently was not pregnant.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS The Rocky Mountain and California bighorns are,in adjacent paddocks. This affords a good chance for comparison. They are almost identical in color and conformation, but the Rocky Mountain sheep are about one-sixth larger.

DALL SHEEP

We had been most anxious to obtain Dall sheep and 2 years ago were successful in capturing a single female lamb north of Atlin, British ~olu~bia.She was caught shortly after birth by outrunning her, which is possible only in the first few hours of life. She was captured on the 24th of May, Queen victoria's birthday, and was naturally called "Vickie .I' A 24-hour babysitting program was organized. She was fed half canned milk and half water, with vitamin supplements added.

An exchange was made with Danny Nolan of the Yukon Game Farm in Whitehorse in the spring of 1971. A 2-year old Dall ram and 2 yearling ewes were obtained for Stone, Rocky Mountain, and California lambs raised on the Farm. Our yearling Dall, "Vickiel', was as large as the 2-year-old wild Dall ram.

FEEDING

We were told for many years that alfalfa would kill wild hooved animals. However, it is the mainstay of our feedings. Hay is fed in racks with a trough underneath, to catch the dropped hay and to minimize waste. The alfalfa has been tested to contain from 18 to 21% protein. Grain and pellets also are fed in the troughs. Pellets consist of: Parts Ingredients , 300 linseed meal 400 ground corn 720 oat a 400 bran 150 molasses 20 deflourinated phosphate 10 vitamin A to obtain 20,000 units per pound 2,000 Total

In addition browse is supplied in the form of orchard prunings, willow. and poplar. The Farm is located in a fruit growing area and cull apples are available for the hauling. An old fashioned fan chopper is employed, and chopped apples are fed to nearly all of the animals, including the sheep.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS High in mineral content, spring water is supplied in a trough. There are no wet spots in the paddocks. We have no problems with diarrhoea, common in some game farms.

A block of common cobalt salt is provided and utilized by the sheep. The feeding regimen remains constant all year, with the minor addition of grasses in the spring. Horn growth is exceptional on all animals on the farm.

Lambs taken from the paddocks for one reason or another are fed half condensed milk and half water, with multivitamin supplements. Diarrhoea occasionally has been a problem and sulfamethazine has been used with good results. Powdered charcoal and Pomalin liquid also have been used.

DISEASES ENCOUNTERED

One young California lamb shipped to Stanley Park in Vancouver died several weeks later with a lungworm infestation. Stress of capture and abrupt climatic change were thought to be factors contributing to the lamb's death. One elderly California ewe died following vaccination. An autopsy was not done, but there had been stress from capture and vaccination.

Fecal samples occasionally have been collected from our sheep by visiting biologists, but we have no reports of their findings. Visiting veterinarians comment on the healthy appearance of our animals. We feel adequate nutrients are supplied.

Prior to establishing the Farm, woodticks (Dermacenter andersoni)and tick paralysis were endemic to the area. Many wild birds are attracted to the Farm and it is not uncommon to see blackbirds and magpies perched on the backs of the sheep and other animals. We also have peacocks, Guinea fowl, and wild turkeys at large. These birds help to keep the insect population down.

As previously mentioned, there is good drainage and no wet areas allowed in the sheep paddocks. This is a deterrent to the completion of parasitic life cycles. It also helps eliminate hoof rot. A lamb confined in a small wet area had a minor problem with hoof rot. Another lamb had a hoof area infected from an injury. Although all of the paddocks have rxky areas, some overgrowth of hooves occurs and hooves are trimmed at the time of capture for vaccination or shipment, This problem also has been noted in wild-caught animals.

Sheep showing changes in behavior or appearance are given anti-worm medication in the form of Piperazine or Thibenzol in their feed or water. Our Foreman (Lewis Reist)

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TJUNSACTIONS gives this medication several times each year. We do not have a veterinarian. Our knowledge is picked up from any available source. We would welcome anyone undertaking studies. We still fear a total loss of a species. as with our first' experience with Rocky Mountain bighorns. For this reason, we have divided our

California bighorn. \

CAPTURE

To capture wild sheep, we have used primarily a Palmer "Cap-Churl1 gun and M-99 (1 cc. or 5 mg, 0.25 cc. Anatran, and 1 cc. Hyoscine, made up to 3 cc. with water to fill the dart). Natrophine HC1 or Nalline has been used as the antidote and found useful to bring the animal back up to the desired level of anaesthesia. Animals usually have bken led off from the mountains. Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) led fairly well, but sheep have to be led, pushed, guided, "baahed" and "cussed" at. They have been noted to stop and graze in a most unconcerned manner.

One underdosed ewe was followed for a long way by George Lawrence. He finally baahed at her and she walked up to him, close enough that he was able to grab her by the horns. His companion with the rope was far away, and he had to use his belt to bring her off from the mountain.. The most common failure was due to the syringe detonator not working. Range was from 40 to 50 yards and the ideal site was high on the rump or shoulder. A shot ahead of the leg acted like an arrow and was fatal to 2 sheep. Little alarm was shown by the animal if the stalking was well done and the animal was not aware of the hunter. Five to 8 minutes elapsed before tha animals went down. Penicil'in, Sevite (for dhite muscle prevention) and Vitamin E were given by injection after capture.

Powdered succiny.-choline chloride was mentioned previously in the capture of 2 Rocky Mountain bighorns. The sheep were much slower to go down and traveled a fairly long distance in comparison to those drugged with M-99, They were down for a very short time and then had to be blindfolded and given a tranquilizer. Human volunteers drugged with succinyl-choline chloride report a great deal of pain just before paralysis, and our experience shows M-99 is a more effective drug. We have not had M-50/50 to use in place of nalline, but understand it is superior. We presently are out of M-99 and have not been able to obtain more.

TRANSPORTATION

Captured sheep initially were brought out of the mountains secured across a saddle horse, much as a deer carcass. Bloating and salivation problems caused that this method be abandoned. Small, light plywood crates then were used and in winter were pulled out of remote, areas with snowmobiles.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNC IT. 1973 TRANSACTIONS Instead of keeping the animals in stalls in the quarantine area, they were put into paddocks with other animals as quickly as possible. After a few runs at the fences, they soon became quiet and fed with the other animals. It is of definite value to have a tame captive nucleus in the paddocks when newly captured animals are introduced. A low plywood crate, the size of a pickup truck, was used to transport sheep, This is kept relatively dark, and alfalfa hay is used to feed the animals while they are in transit.

BEHAVI OR

Sheep establish a sanctuary area at the high point at the back of their paddock, and become most alarmed if anyone approaches from the back, even at a great distance. In capturing and handling sheep in paddocks, if much running and fear is generated, we wait until the next day before again trying to capture the sheep. Agitation of animals should be minimized during capture and transportation.

Dall sheep are the most placid and even-dispositioned of our 4 types of mountain sheep. The Stone sheep rate second for ease of handling.

BREEDING RECORD

California Bighorn Rocky Mountain Bighorn Stone Sheep -1969 12 ewes -- 12 lambs 2 ewes -- 2 lambs (1 ewe didn' t lamb, (both died) 1 ewe had twins, and 1 lamb died) -1970 12 ewes -- 12 lambs 5 ewes -- 5 lambs (3 died of pneumonia) (1 lamb born dead) -1971 10 ewes -- 7 lambs 3 ewes -- c lambs 6 ewes -- 6 lambs -1972 .10 ewes -- 11 lambs 5 ewes -- 4 lambs 6 ewes -- 6 lambs (1 ewe had twins; 2 (1 ewe not bred) (2 male lambs killed lambs born dead, 1 by an adult ram) died of pneumonia, and 1 hung in fence Summary: 42 lambs born of 7 lambs born 19 lambs born of which which 7 died 5 died CONCLUSIONS

Based on results of breeding and rearing California bighorns, Rocky Mountain bighorns, and Stone sheep in captivity at the Okanagan Game Farm, we feel it is feasible to rear sufficient numbers of these animals in large fenced areas so as to provide populations for restocking wild sheep ranges.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS FU n CC~TDIPU n cur nr A LI~Amn nrpn I nE vExn 1 olunOn~uanclcP ur mum-~uRneuu DESERT STATE PARK

{ark C. Jorgensen and Robert E. Turner, Jr. inza-Borrego Desert State Park 3orrego Springs, California 92004

ibstract. During 12 weeks in the summer of 1972, the authors conducted intense Field investigations on the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis- canadensis cremnobates) :hroughout the Peninsular ranges of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, California, {ore than 50 important springs and canyons were included in the survey. Through- )ut the summer, 239 sightings were made at elevations varying from 1,200 feet, in )oulder-strewn creekbeds, to 4,400 feet on sumac-juniper ridges. An estimated 392 ~ighornsutilize the Park. included in the survey were descriptions of important springs and canyons, recorn- mdations for improving conditions concerning human disturbances, food habits, pop- llation estimates for each canyon, age and sex ratios, predation, and water conditions. )escriptions and population estimates of each area are omitted as these are lengthy ~ndrelatively meaningless without maps and tables.

, survey of the bighorn sheep in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park was made to gain lore information on sheep populations and food habits, human encroachment, and the .mportance of specific areas to the bighorn. The California Department of Parks ~ndRecreation hired two students to obtain this information.

,pproximatelv L2 weeks during June, July. and August, 1972 was spent on field .nvestigations.

IESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS DESCRIPTION OF THE HABITAT

The study area consisted of approximately 175,000 acres of the western ?nd northern mountain ranges in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Those deep canyons with water provide range and solitude required by the bighorn. From the Santa Rosa Mountains in the north, to the In-KO-Pahs in the south, the Park insures the bighorn a habitat protected from exploitation. The lofty crags of the San Ysidros, Vallecitos, Tierra Blancas, Santa Rosas, and In-KO-Pahs hold many undefined bands of bighorn. The sheep are dependent upon reliable water sources and good range, These animals are normally found in the more isolated sectors of the Park, but because of the need for water, they venture into areas frequented by pan. Numerous areas within the Park, with their abundance of.water, tend to attract humans, as- well as bighorns. This attraction is proving to be detrimental to the bighorn.

Bighorn habitat in Anza-Borrego is quite diverse. Sparse, rock-strewn ridges support many sheep, while in some areas a dense ocotillo-agave habitat restricts sheep to rather flat valleys and hilly terrain. Areas around waterholes are important for feeding, as well as for water. The catclaw (Acacia greggii) and grasses are the major plant types utilized in waterhole situations. Rocky slopes are essential as escape terrain, but also are important feeding areas, Plants, such as agave, desert lavender. brittlebush, 5 types of cacti, ratany and ephedra, are important food sources on the slopes

METHODS

The investigators spent 95% of their time in the field, investigating range distri- butions and limits; population numbers, density, and conditions; habitat and its quality; and feedrng habits and social interrelationships. Isolated regions of the Western Co'vado Desert were entered by private jeep and state vehicles. The investigators then backpacked into remote sectors to obtain the desired information,

A 3-day, 20-man sheep census was sponsored by the Borrego Springs Natural History Association in early July. Valuable information was obtained on population numbers and sex ratios. The census also provided comparative data for that gathered in selected areas by the investigators.

Sightings by Park rangers and the archeologist helped determine bighorn movements in many areas.

When possible, population estimates were made from sightings by the study teams. If no bighorns were sighted, conservative estimates were based upon the presence of scats and fresh tracks.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS DISTRIBUTION

Bighorns were observed between 1,200 and 4,400 feet elevation. Bighorns frequently are observed by the Park staff near the headquarters at approximately 775 feet, and scats and beds have been observed at 6,200 feet in the Santa Rosa Mountains. Dis- tribution is based mainly on availability of water and vegetative type and density. Typically dense chaparral definitely is a limiting factor. The pinon pine community generally is an upper limit for Anza-Borrego bighorns, but in the Santa Rosa Moun- tains bighorns frequent pinon slopes at 6,000 feet. These slopes, however, are not densely vegetated and rams there are found higher than usually expected. Deer tend to inhabit denser vegetation than bighorns and little habitat in Anza-Borrego uas used both by deer and bighorns. Further studies on deer-bighorn interrelationships, however, would provide useful management.information.

The 2 largest bighorn concentrations inhabit the Middle Willows of Coyote Canyon in the northern sector of the Park, and the tributaries of Carrizo Canyon. Middle Willows is the most important watering source in the Anza-Borrego Desert, It presently is threatened by heavy off-road vehicle use and by a proposal for a 4- lane-wide recreational parkway. Such disturbances at certain critical times could be disasterous to bighorns. The Carrizo area lies partially within the State Park. The balance is administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Human encroachment on bighorn habitat in the form of jeeps, motorcycles, and hunting, comes from the McCain Valley Conservation Area. Means of protecting the critical bighorn habitat are needed now. One solution is to deed 24 sections of BLM land to the Department of Parks and Recreation for more stringent protection from human encroachment. This is being investigated.

Table 1. Age and sex ratios for bighorn sheep observed in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, 1972.

Area No. Observed

Borrego Palm Canyon Salvadore Canyon Lower Wi 1 lows Middle Willows Sheep Canvon Tubb Canyon Carrizo Canyon (tributary)

DESERT BTGH0R.E COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS SUMMER CONCENTRATIONS

Daily temperatures exceeded 110 F during the first 2 weeks of July, reaching a peak of 118'~. The less reliable water sources in Anza-Borrego ceased to flow or seep during this period. Many bighorns moved out of specific canyons to more reliable water sources during July.

Twenty-five bighorns were counted one day in Borrego Palm Canyon, and one band, consisting of 34, were observed later in July. The group of 34 later consisted of 4 young rams, 5 yearlings, and 25 ewes. Lambs may have been bedded down on the ridge, but none were observed. The absence of older rams possibly may be attributed to poaching known to have occurred during 1969 and 1970. Three reports of poaching were received at Park headquarters in mid-summer, and a poached ram was found by a ranger in November of 1972.

Fairly large numbers of bighorns sometimes concentrate on quite small areas in the proximity of water in Anza-Borrego.

COYOTE CANYON

Coyote Canyon has been threatened repeatedly with a proposed improved road. The road has been vetoed twice by the State Park Commission, but its proponents keep trying to get approval for the roadway.

The 200-year-old Anza Trail traverses the length of Coyote Canyon, passed Lower and Middle Willows. It is not uncommon in mid-summer for 6 to 10 vehicles to use this trail during an afternoon. One day during June, a ewe and her lamb waited 4 to 5 hours to come down to water. When they came to the last ridge, which drops into the creek, they waited another hour for traffic to slow up, Five vehicles were requested to stop downstream, so these sheep could drink. Most of the people were very pleased to do so, but one gentleman asked why the sheep could not come to water during the week, instead of on the weekend.

Bighorn sheep are surviving with the jeep trail up Coyote Canyon, but increased use of this trail would make their survival difficult, if not impossible. The proposed recreational parkway must be halted. Although the Riverside County Board of Super- visors voted on March 6, 1973 to delete the road from their master plan, the San Dlego County apparently remains to be convinced of the importance of the bighorn in this area.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS McCAIN VALLEY CONSERVATION AREA

By far the greatest threat to bighorn bands in the south sector of Anza-Borrego is off-road vehicle (ORV) activity in McCain Valley Conservation Area. McCain Valley, on the western edge of the southern park area, is administered by the BLM. And, the BIM has permitted off-road vehicles to utilize the entire area. As a result, the area has been ravaged by all types of ORVs. Trails cut by jeeps extend far out onto the eastern ridges. Motorcycles occasionally leave these ridge trails to cut down into the valleys. What may appear as impossible terrain for a vehicle is a prime target for the ORV driver. ORV use is legitimate in some areas, but not for cutting trails into the habitat of a rare animal, or into State Park land.

The administrative problems of this area are difficult. Public lands here are partially administered by the State Park Commission and partially as the McCain Valley Conservation Area by the BLM. Hunting also is permitted in the entire area. This could harm the bighorn in the eastern sector, if wise use of firearms is not practiced. Serious considerations must be taken to insure the protection of the McCain Valley and adjacent Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.

NATURAL PREDATION

The mountain lion (Felis conco1or)inhabits Anza-Borrego in fair numbers (Weaver, 1972). Lions occasionally are seen by Park personnel and numerous tracks have been observed, mainly in the northern sector of the Park, in the Coyote Canyon area.

A dead 2-year-old ram was found below a large boulder in the Carrizo area, about 50 yards from a spring. It appeared to have been killed, less than 18 hours previously. Collected scats and on-sight information sent to the Wildlife Investiga- tions Laboratory in Sacramento and studies by Bruce Browning, indicated the coyote as the possible culprit, although death was caused by a broken neck. Possibly a group of coyotes chased the ram off the boulder.

Coyotes fed on 2 lambs in the south fork of Borrego Palm Canyon in June, but whether or not coyotes killed these lambs is speculative. A coyote also fed on a lamb in Sorrego Palm Canyon in 1970. This lamb had died the previous day and the mother still waited for it on a nearby hill. The coyote had taken some internal tissues and a front leg, but no signs of struggle were apparent in the area. We do not believe a coyote would attack a weil-protected lamb or a well-developed animal, unless a fair number of coyotes were present and food was scarce.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS YT- do not believe that natural isa substantial problem to 'L ~llen--7-fra~h 8 bighorn population. The bighorns' future certainly is not jeopardized by natural predation. Modern man is the bighorns ' only threat for survival in the Anza- . Borrego Desert State Park.

FOOD HABITS

Thirty plant species were recorded as having been utilized by bighorns on Anza- Borrego. Of these, use was observed on 20 by the study team and the remaining 10 were reported by reliable sources during the survey period. Table 2 presents . the important food types utilized by bighorns in Anza-Borrego. Perhaps not- important, but of interest, twice sheep were observed during the summer of 1972 to utilize creosote. Horsetail rush is isolated in the Park, but is used heavily when in sheep habitat. Zased on the literature, cactus utilization appeared to be more common than in other desert bighorn areas. Apparently, the plants most commonly used in the summer of 1972 were: catclaw, goatnut or jojoba, and the grasses (Graminacae).

Table 2. Plants frequently used by bighorn sheep on Anza-Borrego Desert State Park.

Scrub Oak Quercus dumosa Horsetail Rush Equisetum arvense Desert Lavender Hv~tisemorvi Brittlebush Encilia farinosa Creosote Larrea divaricata Rat any Krameria grayi Catclaw Acacia greggii Cacti (f ive species) Ephedra Ephedra %. Goatnut Simondsia chinensis

Twelve sheep were found dead during the survey: 4 rams, 2 ewes, and 6 lambs. Two of the lambs were taken to the San Diego Zoo for necropsy. Both died from pneumonia. The other 4 lambs appeared to have died a similar death. They too, were in creekbeds close to water.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNClI 1973 TRANSACTIONS One ewe was killed by a locomotive in a tunnel near the Carrizo Gorge in the southern sector. She was taken to Lyons and 0'~averTaxidermists in .La Mesa, and her weight, measurements, and stomach contents sampled. She weighed 110 pounds. Between 85 and 90% of the stomach contents was grasses, with 10-15% catclaw and traces of fishhook cactus (Mamalaria 9).

Two of the rams were mature, and probably died of old age. One 4-year-old ram died of unknown causes, and the 2.5-year-old was discussed under "~atural Predation .I1

All skulls and horns,except from the ewe killed by the train, were retained by the State Park; the ewe i.s being prepared for exhibit by the San Diego Natural His tory Museum.

CONCLUSION

An estimated total of 392 bighorns inhabit Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, the highest bighorn density for any such area in California. According to Geist, "Their future depends less upon their adaptations, than on the goodwill of man."

Insofar as the bighorns of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, this quotation cannot be stressed rao much. The future of Southern ~alifornia'sbighorns is held in the hands ~f man; in the hands of park managers, state park commissioners, fish and game biologists, and wardens, as well as in the hands of every visitor.

It is the duty of researchers to gather facts concerning the bighorn. These data show just how fragile their future is, and how it is our duty to insure their future.

Anza-Borrego Desert State Park is a most important refuge for the bighorn sheep. ~ts'future protection must be insured by the people of California.

REFERENCES

Browning, Bruce, 1972. Personal comunication.

Dunaway, David J., 1972. Personal communication. -.-. - ~ilesof Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Borrego Springs, Calif.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS REFERENCES (continued)

Geist, Valerius, 1971. Mountain Sheep, a Study in Behavior and Evolution, Univ. Chicago Press.

Griner, Lynn A*, 1972. San Diego Zoological Gardens Necropsy Report on two lambs, .June.

Jorgensen, Mark C., and Robert E. Turner, Jr,, 1972. A Survey of the Desert Bighorn Sheep (&is canadansis) in the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Aug.

Jorgensen, Paul D., 1972, Some Winter Observations of Sheep in the Borrego Desert; and Ideas on Seasonal Behavior in Desert Sheep, Bpecial Study, San Diego State Univ., Mar.

Munz, Philip A.. and Keck, 1959. A California Flora, Univ. Calif. Press.

Weaver, ~ichardA*, Jerry L. Mensch, and William V, Fait, 1968. A Survey of the ~aliforniaDesert Bighorn (Ovis canadensis) in San Diego County, Calif.

Weaver, Richard A., 1972-1973. Personal communication.

DESERT BIGHORN COTJNC1 T. 1973 TRANSACTIONS PANEL INTRODUCTION

James A. Blaisdell National Park Service Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601

The words Desert Bighorn Council, desert bighorn, and burro somehow go together and have for a long time. Either a burro paper has been presented or the burro has been mentioned in the text of each of the council's transactions since its first meeting in 1957. Through 1972, 13 burro papers had been presented; 4 in 1 year. Those included in this year's transactions will bring the total burro papers to either 17 or 18, and 17 years of talking about burros, their need for control or protection, their distribution, their competition with other animals, their destructive or non-destructive natures, their laws and management, and so on.

A group of experts, representing several natural resources management organizations, probably will not present too much new over that presented in 1972, but let's see how the laws affect these different agencies and representatives. Perhaps, if they've got the nerve, they might tell what they are Z3ing about burro problems. One thing for sure: we -do have the wild horse and burro law.

I note in the abstracts that 1 panel member prefers to talk absut his state's law, another about his agency's policies and regulations, and another about burro distribution. When they are finished, they should have presented something in line with the suggested topic: "A panel discussion dealing with current regulations, legislation and activities about wild burros as these may pertain to your realm of expertise.''

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Richard A. Weaver Wildlife Manager, Biologist California Department of Fish and Game Sacramento, California 95814

Abstract. Seven of 14 bighorn study areas in California have feral burro populations. These have created a problem in each of these areas, Burros compete directly with bighorns for food, space and also water if it is in short supply. Burros have damaged the vegetation and soil and have had a detrimental effect on the entire biota. Based on knowledge gained during bighorn investigations, the 1968 burro inventory was revised. The present estimated burro population for California is 3,400 animals.

Feral burro populations have become established- in many widely separated California desert areas, These burros are descendants of those that escaped from, or were allowed to range free by, the early day miners. Burro damage to desert ecosystems has been recognized for many years by field biologists. Burro concentrations cause a serious loss of vegetation and soil erosion. They also totally usurp a small water supply which is vital to wildlife. Nevertheless, the feral burro has been protected since 1953 by laws enacted by the California legislature.

Because burros effect the welfare of bighorn sheep, burro ranges were delineated and their abundance investigated during bighorn investigations.

METHODS

- 1. To observe burro abundance and distribution during the course of bighorn investigations. 2. To map the burro distribution, 3. .To document, where possible, the impact of burros on the habitat and their effec on wild1 ife. 4. To revise the 1968 burro inventory, which was made in cooperation with the Natio Park service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Land Management.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS FINDINGS

A description of conditions on each bighorn study area with feral burros is presented:

Northeastern San Bernardino County: Burros have extended their range in this area during the past 15 years. A visible depletion of grass is evident in these areas of extended range. Bighorn use at some springs has declined during this period. Bighorn and burros, and deer and burros were observed at springs. The burros always were dominant and deer or bighorn would not drink while burros were in the vicinity of the spring. Most bighorn habitat that has had heavy burro use for years does not now have resident bighorn. Approximately 600 burros inhabit this area.

Eastern Imperial County: Extreme competition between bighorns and feral burros, particularily for water, exists in this area. Heavy burro use of tinajas rapidly depletes the water supply and deprives the wildlife in the area. Once the tinajas are dry, the burros move to the Colorado River. Bighorn, by their nature, avoid the dense brush areas adjacent to the river and are reluctant to leave the escape terrain afforded in the mountains.

Northwestern San Bernardino and Southwestern Inyo Counties: There are 2 large military bases in this area. Fort Irwin has no burros, but the China Lake Naval Weapons Center has a large burro population. Differences between the Avawatz Mountains in the Fort Irwin area and the Argus Mountain range in the China Lake area are of interest. The Avawatz Mountains have a good grass cover, a thrifty bighorn population, and no burros. The Argus Mountain range lacks perennial grasses and shows evidence of severe overgrazing. No bighorns were found in this area during the investigation. The population is declining and now perhaps numbers fewer than 15 bighorns. Burros here are competing with wildlife primarily for food and space. Adequate water is available. Trampling of the vegetation in the vicinity of the spring is causing soil erosion,which is de~rimentalto the entire ecosystem. In the 1971-72 Progress Report on the Wildlife Management Plan for the China Lake Navai Weapons Center, the Department reported the following: Field observatims in 1972 indicate that horses and burros are increasing at a rather rapid rate. On the night of June 23, 1972, a total of 54 burros, including 19 colts of the year, were observed between the bottom and top of Mountain Spring Canyon. Overuse by feral animhls has vlsibly changed the biotic communities in the Etcheron iJalley, Cole Flat, Tennessee Springs, Mariposa Spring, Mustang Spring, Lost Cabin and Dead End Cabin Spring areas. Burros alone have virtually denuded Moscow Canyon, Wilson Canyon, Mountain Springs Canyon and the ~urchamSpring areas of annual vegetation plus much of the perennial vegetation.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Northern Inyo and Southern Mono Counties: The desert portion of Inyo County was designated as a burro sanctuary by the California Legislature in 1957 (Section 10930, Fish and Game Code). Saline Valley and,the lower elevations of the Inyo, Last Chance, Saline, and Nelson ranges surrounding the valley, and all. of Hunter Mountain has had a large burro population for many years. In the past, the lower elevations have been wintering areas for bighorn, as evidenced by rock Indian hunting blinds near Upper Warm Springs. Bighorn still use the foothill ranges of similar topography,twhere there are no burros, such as on-the Grapevine Mountains in Death Valley. The conflict is not obvious in the Inyo Mountains, because at present there is little overlap of burro and bighorn ranges. Burros are confined to the lower elevations by the nearly vertical topography. A remnant bighorn population of about 15 head ranges above the burros. Some information dating back to 1938 is available for the Dodd Spring area. Here, as burro numbers have increased over the years, the perennial grasses have been eliminated and a once important bighorn area has been reduced to only seasonal use. Bighorn are no longer resident to the Dodd Spring area, but will travel there when stressed for water.

Southeastern San Bernardino County: competition between bighorn sheep and feral burros is evident primarily in the areas adjacent to the Colorado River. Severe competition was observed in the Chernehuevi Mountains. Burros continually are increasing their range, and in the last few years have extended their range west of Highway 95. Burros here compete directly with sheep for food, water, and space. Areas inhabited by burros are severely utilized and the perennial grasses important to bighorn almost have been eliminated. During wet periods, burros move into the bighorn ranges and compete directly with them for food and water. When conditions become severe and the tinajas go dry, the burros retreat to areas adjacent to the Colorado River. The bighorns, however, do not use the river. There- fore, they zre forced to survive on depleted ranges and water conditions, resulting in a smaller bighorn herd. The competition here for available water is most serious.

The Whipple Mountains is an area where burros appear to have contributed to bighorn losses. Bighorn habitat exists, in the Buckskin Mountains, directly across the Colorado River. The 2 areas are nearly identical, except for burro numbers. Burros are not abundant on the Arizona side and bighorns there are known to drink from the Colorado River. Burro numbers are high on the California side and bighorns there are not known to use the Colorado River, Burros are dominant and bighorns will not challenge them for water. Burro range in the Whipple Mountains is extensive, and bighorns have not been seen there since 1956.

Burros are considered the reason why bighorns are not seen along the river in the Chemehuevi Mountains on the California side. Remaining bighorns in this range are stressed severely by burros usurping the water and depleting the forage. Burros also are established in the Fenner Springs area of the Piute Mountains. This population originated from a pregnant female burro which escaped from the nearby

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Mountain Springs Station in 1952, No apparent competition with bighorn exists in this area, because of the burros' presently limited range.

Clark, Kingston and Nopah Mountain Ranges: Slight competition between bighorns and burros is evident in the eastern portions of the Clark Range. This may be because they occupy different terrain, but the lack of bighorn observed at water's may be because of cattle and burro use, Perennial grass is absent from areas of cattle or burro concentration, although quite abundant elsewhere.

Three burros released in the Kingston Mountains may present a future problem.

Burros and horses roam freely in the Chicago and Pahrump valleys and to the lower elevations of the Nopah Mountains. However, since there is no water source here, use is seasonal and light, and competition with wildlife is not evident.

Death Valley and Adjacent Areas: Many of the springs in the Death Valley area have a good flow and competition for water is not as serious as elsewhere in the desert. Bighorns and burros here water at the same spring with no display of animosity. However, the burros are dominant and bighorns usually wait for them to leave or leave if burrows come while they are drinking. Continual occupancy of a spring by burros is a disturbance not tolerated by bighorns.

The more serious problem is the depletion of the vegetative cover and forage near springs. As previously described for Dodd Springs, the lack of forage near some springs has resulted in them no longer supporting resident bighorn populations, but only seasonal use, thus forcing animals to travel some distance from adequate forage to water.

There is some degree of coexistence between burros and bighorns on some ranges, but the best bighorn ranges and most thrifty bighorn populations are free of burros. Burros have increased their range and numbers since 1960. Blackwater Spring is a case in point. This spring was important to bighorns and free 2f burros in 1960, but recently burro use at the spring has been heavy and fresh bighorn sign cannot be found. Burros were trapped in the National Park for pets or beasts of burden for a time during the 1950's. This controlled burro numbers to some extent in the trapping areas.

DISCUSSION

Investigations were conducted primarily in bighorn habitats, and not all burro ranges were covered. Distribution of burros in the bighorn study areas was mapped. The total population estimate is a revision of the 1968 inventory which was conducted

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS in cooperation with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service. A reliable burro estimate is extremely difficult to ascertain, due to the roughness of terrain and the difficulty in . distinguishing burros from their background. Therefore, the estimate is based to a large extent on the abundance of observed signs. If in error, it is probably on the conservative side.

The following map and inventory show approximate burro numbers and their distribution in California. Approximately 100 burros, which range on Bureau of Land Management lands in Lassen County, are not indicated.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS FISH AND GAME

ANGE""" \ 33 34

IMPERIAL SAN D I E G 0

oEl Centro Feral Burro Inventory (revised 1972)

Ma p -Area County Mountain Range -Area Estimate 1 Inyo Inyo Marble Canyon 2.5

2 Inyo Last Chance Sand Springs 25

Inyo Nelson ) Saline Valley 350 Saline ) (entire watershed)

4 Inyo Panamint Tin Mountain 100

Panamint Cottonwood 1 500 Hunter Mountain )

6 Inyo Panamint Tucki 100

7 I nyo Panamint Wildrose 100

8 Inyo Panamint Butte Valley 350

Panamint Panamint Valley (east side only)

10 Inyo Argus Panamint Spring 25

Argus ) China Lake ) Coso ) North Range )

12 I nyo ) Slate ) China Lake 1 San Bernardino ) Brown Mountain ) Mohave B Range ) Eagle Crags )

13 Inyo Nopah Nopah Mountains ) 25 Chicago Valley )

14 San Bernardino Lava Lava 10

15 Kern Sierra Nevada Cache Peak

16 San Bernardino Kingston Kings ton

17 San Be rriardino Clark 1 Clark ) 50 Mesquite ) Mesquite Mountains ) Feral Burro Inventory (cont.)

Mountain Range Area Estimate

San Bernardino Kelso Kelso Peak 1 Old Dad Mountain ) Cima Dome 1

San Bernardino Providence Providence Mt. Area New York

I Granite

San Bernardino Piute Fenner Spring

San Bernardino Kramer Hills Kramer Hills

San Bernardino Ord Ord Mountains

San Bernardino San Bernardino Mts. Cajon to Crestline

San Bernardino San Bernardino Mts. Rattlesnake Mountains

San Bernardino San Bernardino Mts. Box S Spring

San Bernardino San Bernardino Mts. Old Woman Spring

San Bernardino San Bernardino Mts, Mound Spring

San Bernardino San Bernardino Mts. Pioneertown

San Bernardino San Bernardino Mts. Slide Lake

San Bernardino Dead Dead Mountains

San Bernardino Chemehuevi C heme huevi

San Bernardino Whipple Whipple

Riverside Santa Rosa Rockhouse Basin

Riverside Orocopia Dos Palmas Spring

Impex ia 1 Chocolate U.S. Navy Gunnery Range

Imperial Chocolate ) Vinegar Wash ) Palo Verde ) Midway Well ) Palo Verde Mountains )

Imperial Chocolate Picacho Peak

Lassen Smoke Creek

Total 3,476 BURRO MANAGEMENT AND THE NATIONAL PARK' SERVICE

Francis "Jake" Jacot Resources Specialist National Park Service San Francisco, California 94102

Abstract. The basic policy of the National Park System is that "Non-native species of plants and animals will be eliminated where it is possible to do so by approved methods which will preserve wilderness qualities." in natural and historical parks. I' . . . control of exotic species will be undertaken only when they are undesirable in terms of public health, recreational uses and enjoyment, or when their presence threatens significant scientific features or the existence of important native species." Thus, policy requires the elimination of free-roaming burros and horses from natural and historical parks, and possible control of these animals in recreational parks.

The management of all resources under the National Park System derives from Federal laws, which are reflected in policies and, finally, rules and regulations which have the effect of law.

SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL LAWS The fundamental purpose of National ?ark System areas is . . . to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment . . . as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." This mission can be simplified to the degree that each park will provide for a perpetuating non-consumptive use of its resources. In addition, the purpose of the National Park Service is to I' . . . promote and regulate use . . .If of the individual parks which will allow them to fulfill their mission. The often- times referred to contradiction between development-public u-se-andconservation, which of necessity entails the management of park resources, exists in a similar manner as on national forest or public domain lands where the preservation of multipl use principles exist in order to maximize the conservation or perpetuation of consumptive uses. The basic purpose of parks, therefore, requires the management (conservation) lf natural ecosystems. Legislation does not comment regarding conservation of non-nstive and/or exotic animal life on National Park System areas.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS le December 15, 1971, act to protect and manage wild, free-roaming horses and lrros (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340) does not apply to the National Park System by virtue i the definition of "public lands."

ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES APPLICABLE TO EXOTIC AND/OR NON-NATIVE ANIMALS

Jon-native species of plants and animals will be eliminated where it is possible do so by approved methods which will preserve wilderness qualities" in natural ~d historical category parks. Whereas, in recreational parks the " . . . Control i exotic species will be undertaken only when they are undesirable in terns of iblic health, recreational uses and enjoyment, or when their presence threatens .gnificant scientific features or the existence of important native species."

RULES AND REGULATIONS

)st rules and regulations concerning the management of areas administered by the ~tionalPark Service are found in Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations. Chapter Parts 1-6, consists nf general regulations applicable to all parks. Part 7 bflects special regulations of specific ?arks.

I natural and historical parks, public hunting, the killing, wounding, frightening, ~pturingor artempts thereof, of any life form, with a few recognized minor excep- .ms, is prohibi ced.

1 recreational parks, desirable public uses include a compatible harvest of animal .fe in accordance with Federal, State, and local law and regulations. If State law :ovides for the taking of burros and wild free-roaming horses, then this will apply populations within a recreational park. Enforcement by Federal regulation can :cur through the assimilation of state regulations affecting the taking of all life mns, be they native wild or non-native feral animals, such as wild horses a~dburros.

CONCLUSIONS

~ws,poli.ies and regulations affecting public uses of the National Park System, ; well as responsibilities of the NLgtional Park Service with respect to the entire Iectrum af restoring and maintaining the integrity of park ecosvstems,require: 1, Elimination of free-roaming burros and horses from natural and historical parks, and 2. the poss~blecontrol of free-roaming burro and horse populations in recreational parks.

ZSERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTION' TALLam,uuuh n ci arnq.0 as Public Tbw 92-195, which calls for the protection, management and control of wild, free-roaming horses and burros, is limited to specific lands . administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, this. legislation has no effect upon National Park Service resource management programs. However, it can and more than likely will have an extremely adverse effect upon the legislative responsibilities of the National Park Service, due to the overflow of emotional concern, rather than acceptance of factual and logical data.

A legal explanation of implications of the following regulation to owners and trustees of wild, free-roaming horses and burros is strongly warranted in that: "The running at large, herding, driving across; or.grazing of animals of any kind onthe public lands of an area (park), or the use of such lands for agricultural purposes is permitted only under a valid lease, contract or special use permit issued by the United States, or pursuant to law." (Sec. 5.16, Part 5, Chapt. 1, 36 C.F.R.).

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 197 3 TRANSACTIONS THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE'S ROLE REGARDING BURROS

Dell 0. Clark Yertebrate Pest Control Specialist 2alifornia Department of Food and Agriculture Sacramento, California 95814

lbstract. The issuance of .permits by the California Department of Food and Agriculture on public lands not administered by the Bureau of Land Management 3r the Forest Service is discussed in light of California Fish and Game Code laws and recent Federal legislation (Public Law 92-195).

Zalifornia laws dealing with wild burros (Equus asinus) are found in the California ?ish and Game Code (Chapter 6, Sections 4600 - 4060, and Chapter 3, Section 4187).

?ederal legislation (Public Law 92-195) has caused some confusion regarding the nanagement of wild burros. This law placed all wild, free-roaming horses and burros 3n public lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture. The law defines "public lands" as any lands administered ~y the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or by the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest Service (FS).

T. L. 92-195 has been interpreted by State legal counsel and Federal solicitors to nean that in California, the existing state law shall prevail in areas not administered by the FS or the BLM. Many wild burros occur on Federal lands not administered 3y these 2 agencies.

Sriefly stated, the California burro law allows the California Department of Food and lgriculture to issue permits to applicants to capture wild burros to be used only - 2s pecs 5r as pack animals. It is not the intent of the law to provide recreational 3ctivities to persons through the issuance of a permit so that they may pursue on norseback and capture burros merely for the "thrill of the chase" or to exercise their horses. Most such persons have no intent of keeping or of using the burros.

Sased upon receipt of a written permit request, the Department may issue a permit to Zapture 1 or 2 burros. Persons requesting more than 2 animals must demonstrate a legitimate use for the animals and have adequate holding facilities. These require- nents may be determined through previous knowledge of the applicant or through personal inspecti.3 bv a district biologist.

3ESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS After capture, a burro remains the legal property of the State of California for 3 years. The burro only may be possessed and used for purposes stated in the la,w, and only this in~erestmay be transferred. In other words, the animal(s) may be used as a pet or a beast of burden and only may be given away and not sold or harmed.

California law also provides for the Department to issue permits to take burros when they are damaging or destroying property. Depredation permits are issued only after a Department biologist makes an on-the-scene investigation of the situation and submits a written report and recommendation. All factors are weighed before any action is caken.

In addition to the requirements of the burro law, the California Department of Food and Agriculture also is guided on feral burro management by a cooperative agreement between the Department, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and the BLM. This agreement provides for cooperativ management of burros, wildlife, livestock and their respective habitats, which is necessary for proper resource management, both for the burro and for the total environment.

If a depredation ~ermitis issued, the law does not permit the sale or shipment of animals from che premises. The Department also may stipulate any other conditions within the permit as it deems necessary.

Upon enactment of P. L. 92-195, all outstanding burro permits in California were cancelled and none have since been issued.

Although the ~epartment'slegal authority to issue permi.ts to capture or take burros appears to be clear, until all interpretations of P. L, 92-195 are presented and all regulations have been implemented, the issuance of burro permits in California will remain unc 1ear.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Loscoe E. Ferris :ange Staif Wreau of Land Management lashington, D.C.

~bstract, The Bureau of Land ~anagement'sactions toward implementation of the Jild Horse and Burro Act (P. L. 92-195) and its proposed prog'ram for fiscal year -974 are reviewed.

Zany will remember a paper I presented to the Council in 1972. At that time Public .aw 92-195 only recently had been passed and I explained some of its major provisions ind emphasized sections directly related to wildlife and the desert bighorn sheep. ilthough a year has passed, many of the questions posed at that time are still inanswered; however, progress has been made toward the implementation of this act In national resource lands. i proposed environmental impact statement, in accordance with the provisions of the Jational Environmental Policy Act, has been prepared and published for public review rnd comment. The comments received have'been analyzed and the final statement, with ;ome modification, is being prepared for publication.

Che act also required regulations by the Secretary of the Interior to establish ;enera1 policy and procedure guidelines for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ~t all levels of administration. These proposed regulations also have been drafted ~ndpublished for public review and comment. They are now being revised for adopt- :on by the Secretary of the Interior. fhe National Advisory Board for wild, free-roaming horses and burros, as required by :he act, has been appointed by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, fhis h3ard has held 2 meetings. The last meeting held on March 21 and 22, 1973, Jas devoted primarilv to recommendations and suggestions on the proposed impact ;tatements and regulations published by the BLM and the Forest Service (FS). It is anticipated that future board meetings will be directed more toward guideline recomm- 2ndations that can be utilized by field personnel in on-the-ground management ~ct ivities.

IESERT BLGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Additional activities currently underway within the Bm, which are required to administer wild, free-roaming horses and burros, include the preparation of BIM manual guidelines for use by field personnel. The initial draft of this manual ' will be completed within a few weeks. The BIN also is drafting model cooperative agreements with other Federal, State, or local agencies and associations or individuals which will be necessary to carry out the intent of the act. These basic agreements will be modified, as necessary, at the State or local level to provide for local problems or situations.

Most of the problems relative to interpretation of the act which might require court decisions have not been solved. Legal opinions have been obtained from the departmental and field solicitors to some of the questions and are being used to formulate regulations. Future court decisions eventually may still be required.

At present, appropriated funds to implement the act have been authorized; therefore, all BLM manpower requirements have been siphoned from already stressed other activities. On-the-ground field accomplishments during the past year have been limited generally to the following items: 1. Surveillance and protection, 2. Administration of the Pryor Mountain Horse Range. 3. Processing a limited number of ownership claims. 4. Development of a wild horse and burro prospectus on research and studies needs. 5. A horse and burro inventory in Nevada and a few other relatively small areas.

Our current plans to utilize the limited funds and manpower expected for fiscal year 1974 are as follows: 1. Publicize the existence of this act and indicate the BW'S role in its enforcement and implementation. 2. Continue surveillance and protection procedures. 3. Law enforcement training for selected Bureau employees. 4. Determine ownership and permit removal of privately owned animals from wild herd: 5. Complete intensive inventory of wild horses and burros on some 15 million acres of national resource lands. 6. Continue funding support for the joint BLM-FS Advisory Board established by the act. - 7. Initiate cooperative agreements with private, national, state, and local groups who have an interest in wild horses and burros. 8. Undertake studies of wild horses and burros and their habitats.

-. This summary of accomplishments to date, and projections for fiscal year 1974-are not encouraging; however, I feel important progress has been made. I stress the importance of progress to date, because the basic provisions are being formulated to protect manage, and control wild, free-roaming horses and burros as an integral part of the

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS ~aturalsystem of the public lands. This is a basic concept of the Wild Horse and lurro Act. Utilization of the ~ureau'splanning system, which provides for public jarticipation in the decisions regarding the uses and the degree of each use that :an be accommodated on public lands, will be achieved,

'he basic Bureau policy is to manage wild horses and burros under principles of lultiple use, sustained yield, and environmental quality; to protect them from inauthorized actions, to manage their habitat in a manner to achieve and maintain I thriving ecological balance, and a thriving population of sound and healthy .ndividuals. Full participation by the public and cooperation with states, local ;overnments, and others are required,

lESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS SELECTIVE EXCLUSION FENCING IN WILD BURRO AND BIGHORN SHEEP MANAGEMENT

Edward Cleary N.A. School of Conservation and Ecology Anaheim, California 92805 .

Abstract. Interspecific,competition for water by wild burro and bighorn sheep in the Wood's Mountains was eliminated by use of a steel-pipe fence. The fence enclosed Wood's Spring, the only permanent water source in the area, in such a manner as to deny water to the burro without denying water to the bighorn sheep.

Without water, the burro were forced to seek both water and food outsi.de of the wood's Mountains. Thus, fencing indirectly eliminated competition for food and directly eliminated competition for water between these two species.

Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) and wild burro (Equus asinus) cannot occupy the same range without competing directly for food and water (Moehlman,l972; weaver, 197Zj 1ngles,1965). This competition results in the displacement of bighorn sheep from their native range by burro (Weaver,1972, Ingles,1965). Burro are displacing bighorn sheep over much of their native range in the Southern California Desert (Weaver, 1972; Turner, 1973).

Throughout the Southern California Desert, water availability and distribution is the - limiting factor in determining range use (Weaver,197Z3 Turner,1973). The easiest way to control any animal population is to control the limiting factor. The easiest way to eliminate competition between burro and sheep is to control theirwa'ter suppl>

Selective exclusion fencing at water holes is one way of doing this. A selective exclusion fence is one that will keep one type of animal out, but will allow other types of animals to enter an area. In this case, the fence excludes burro from watel without excluding bighorn sheep.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS 'he major factor to consider prior to using this technique is the location and lumber of permanent water sources in the area. The location must allow the use )f this type of fencing. The ideal location is at the base of a cliff. The lumber of permanent water sources in an area is important for economic reasons. 411 must be fenced before this management technique will work. in ideal site is wood's Spring, in the 25-square-mile wood's Mountain area in :astern San Bernardino County, California. The spring is the only permanent source of water in wood's Mountains and is situated on a relatively flat area at :he base of a cliff.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Che fence at Wood's Spring was built in a "U" shape, from the cliff face, around :he spring and back to the cli'ff. The fenced area enclosed about 1,000 square :eet. The following materials were used: 2-inch steel pipe of the following lengths: 17 - 5-foot sections 24 - 10-foot sections 150 feet of barbed wire' 48 - "U" clamps for attaching the runners to the uprights 200 - 1.5 x 8-inch sheet metal screws Concrete Native rock and aggragate

Jprights iniiiallv were set up with 6-inch flanges bolted to the bedrock with 4-inch !ag screws and lead exoansion plugs. This, however, did not prove satisfactory. Che rock was tqo soft to hold the plugs of the size being used, and thk uprights qere easily pushed over. The uprights then were set into 6-inch deep holes that qere star-drilled lnto the rock and concrete was poured around them. Uprights dere set 8 to 10 feet apart. Two runners were strung between each upright; the first about 18 inches and the second about 36 inches above the ground. Runners were 3ttached to the uprights by "U" clamps and sheet metal screws. A single strand 3f barbed wire then was strung above the top runner. At each end of the fence, qhere it butte?. against the cliff, the runners were set into holes drilled into the rock and cemented into place. rhe storage capacity of the spring also was increased from about 10 to 50 gallons. rhis was !o make more water available for bighorns and other wildlife and to cut jown on the amount of water running under the fence. rhe fence took 2 days to complete and was built by students from the North American khool of Conservation and Ecology, working under the direction of the California Department of Fish and Game and under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Land Management.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS RESULTS

Twenty burro were seen near the spring during the fence construction on April 11 and 12, 1972. They would not approach the spring because of our presence. An observation post was established about 150 yards east of the spring. Subsequent observations were made from this post for ~eriodsof 48 to 72 hours.

On May 6 and 7, only 4 burro were seen drinking from a small overflow area outside the fence. During the same observation period, 14 sheep (11 adult ewes and 3 lambs) were seen drinking from the same area the burro had used. None of the animals demonstrated fear of the fence; one lamb walked under the fence, but did not approac the spring to drink. There were no burro or sheep signs inside the fence. Fresh burro sign was still plentiful in the area.

On July 21 and 22, only 2 burro (a jenny and her foal) were seen drinking from the spring overflow. Although there were fresh sheep signs inside the fence, there were no burro signs inside. The signs indicated that the sheep were using a narrow rock ledge leading into the spring above the fence. Of the 12 bighorns seen on this occasion, only one approached the spring to drink. The single sheep seen drinking on this occasion perhaps was because of an adequate summer water supply. Sheep need to drink only every 3 davs (Turner,1373). Fresh burro sign also became much less commrp around the spring and in the western and northern parts of the mountains.

On September 2, 3 and 4, no burro or sheep were seen near the spring. This was due to recent thunder show activity in the area which provided water elsewhere in "tinaj: and other rack catchments. The signs indicated that the sheep were still using the rock ledge 10 get into the spring. It also appeared that the sheep were jumping the fence in some places. No fresh burro signs were found near the spring or in the northern and western portion of Wood's Mountains. The signs indicated that the bighorns were moving into and using areas of the mountains once dominated by the bur:

The last visit t~ the spring was made on March 9, 10 and 11, 1973. No sheep or burr. signs were then found at the spring. However, scattered sheep signs were found thro; out wood's Mountains. Also, some burro sign were found at lower elevations. The wide distribution of the sheep and partial reinvasion of the area by burro was due to the exceptionally abundant winter rains (6 - 7 inches), which had provided abundant food and water thrmghout the area. When water again becomes a limiting factor this summer, burro shou!d be eliminated from this section of bighorn sheep range_by this selective exclusion fencing technique,

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS CONCLUSIONS ntil now the control of wild burro on bighorn sheep ranges has meant physically emoving or killing the burros. Both of these methods are undesirable for economic, umanitarian and legal reasons. reliminary results indicate this technique works. With selective exclusion fencing, ild burro can be eliminated from certain bighorn ranges without the inherent bjections of physical remove1 or destruction of the wild burros. his technique now should b.e tried at springs requiring a fence completely around hem. There were indications at wood's Spring that sheep would jump a 36-inch igh fence, and burro would not. If this is true, then the burro possibly can be liminated from almost any desert bighorn sheep range.

LITERATURE CITED

3SERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Thomas D. Bunch Warren C. Foote and J. Juan Spillett Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322

Abstract, Chromasome analyses in relation to genetic evolution in Ovis are discussed, It is hypothesized that wild sheep migrated from central Asia both eastward to North America and westward to Europe, and chromosome changes resulting in che terminal. populations having the lowest diploid number occurred. The karyotype and hemoglobin pattern for el son's desert bighorn is compared with those of both domestic and other North American and Eurasian wild sheep.

Chromosome analyses for morphologically different wild sheep have provlded additional insight intc some aspects of the distributi0.n and evolution of the genus Ovis. According to Wurster and Benirschke (1968), the principal mechanism involved in the genetic evolution of Ovis has been centric fusion of chromosomes. For example, in the evolution of the modern forms, the diploid (2N) chromosome number in the primitive form was reduced by the fusion of acrocentric chromosomes to form metacentrie chromosomes.

If this has been the mode of karyotype evolution in Ovis the Asian wild sheep -9 (2N=58-60) then should be the closest relatives of the primitive ancestral stock (Nadler et a!., 371). During the Quaternary Period,,it is hypothesized that wild sheep from central Asia migrated both eastward to North America and westward to Europe. As the sheep dispersed from their center of origin, extensive structural

' A contribution of the Departments of Animal Science and Zoology, Utah State Univ- ersity and of the Utah Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit: Utah Division of Wildlif Resources, Utah State University, U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and Wildlife Management Institute, cooperating.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS hromosome changes occurred. These resulted in the terminal populations Rocky Mountain bighorn and mouflon) having the lowest diploid numbers. This heory agrees with the established karyotypes of several morphologically distinct ild sheep populations (Wurster and Benirschke,l968; Nadler et al., 1971; and adler, 1971). elson's bighorn, comprising one of several desert subspecies of the northern Rocky ountain bighorn (Ovis canadensis, species type; Cowan, 1940), represents an extrem- ty of sheep migration into ~orgAmerica. According to Beuchner (1960) and Clark 1967), its native range covers a large expanse of mountainous areas of Death Valley nd the Mojave Desert, including almost the whole lower one-third of California nd southern Nevada, the southern part of Utah and the upper northwestern portion f Arizona. emoglobins are commonly used as genetic markers to define various breeds of omestic sheep. Types Hbg A, B, C, and D have been reported in domestic sheep van Vllet and Huisman, 1964; Vaskov and Efremov, 1967; and Stormont et al., 1968). nlike domestic sheep, only Hbg B has been reported in wild sheep (Lay et al., 971). The purpose of this study was to determine the chromosome number or aryotype of this sheep population and to genetically compare it to other groups f North American wild sheep.

MATERIALS AND METHODS our els son's bighorn rams and 6 ewes were sampled near Fry Canyon, San Juan County, tah. These samples were characterized and then compared to hemoglobins from: 3 .ocky Mountain bighorns maintained at Sybille, Wyoming; 2 Stone sheep maintained in private compound in northern California; 12 mouflon at Utah State University; and .bg B from domestic sheep.

.load samples were taken from the jugular vein with 10 ml sterile, heparinized vacutainer" tubes. Chromosome spreads were prepared from leucocyte cultures as escribed by Moorhead et al. (1960). Hemolysates for hemoglobin analyses were pre- ared according to Drabkin (1946). Potassium cyanide was mixed with the hemoglobin reparations to inhibit oxidation (Drysdale et al., 1970). our slides were prepared from each leucocyte culture. Fifty chromosome spreads lere examined to determine chromosome number and morphology for each animal. - - ~hotomicrographs, at 1000 x magnification, were taken of several chromosome spreads o establish the karyotype. soelectric focusing gels were prepared according to Wrigley (1968), except that he conceniration of acrylamide was reduced from 30 to 20 mg/100 ml H20 and an

IESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS ammonium persulfate catalyst was substituted for potassium persulfate. Ampholine solutions (LKB distributors, pH 6-8, 40% w/v.at final concentrations of 1.8%) were used. Hemolysates were diluted 30-fold in H20, and 0.1 ml was added to each of the gel mixtures prior to polymerization. A current of 2mA/gel was maintained for the first 0.5 hour of electrofocusing, and then automatically dropped to .33 mA/gel. The voltage was maintained at 320 V. Gels were run a total of 6 hours, and photographs then were taken of the hemoglobin patterns. Hemoglobin patterns from fresh, frozen and air-drie,d hemolysates from h el son's bighorn were compared on the basis of number, position and density of bands. Only frozen samples were compared to hemoglobins from Rocky Mountain bighorns, Stone, mouflon and Hbg B of domestic sheep.

RESULTS

The diploid chromosome number of els son's bighorn is 54, with 6 large metacentrics and 46 smaller acrocentric autosomes (Fig. 1). The sex chromosomes consist of an acrocentric X and a very small metacentric Y. The Y chromosome is very easy to locate in good chromosome spreads.

Hemoglobin patterns of h el son's bighorn hernolysates consist of 3 equally spaced bands (Fig. 2A). The mid-band is lighter than either the top or bottom bands. Patterns of frozen or air-dried hemolysates are identical, but differ from fresh samples in that they have 2 additional bands (Fig. 2~). In all 3 types of hemo- lvsate preparations, iaint yellowish bands appear above and below the distinct reddish hemoglobin bands.

Hemoglobin patterns of the els son's bighorn resemble the Hbg B of domestic sheep (Fig. 2C). Differences were observed only between the 3-band patterns of fresh hemolysates. The top and bottom band of the desert bighorn are of like density, whereas the Lower 2 bands of domestic sheep Hbg B are of similar density. Upon freezing or drying the hemolysates, no observable differences can be detected. Fresh, frozen and air-dried hemolysates of h el son's bighorn were compared to similarly prepared hemolysates from 3 Rocky Mountain bighorns and 2 Stone sheep. Differences in band position or density could not be detected (Fig. 2D & E). Upon comparing the hemoglobin patterns of both els son's and Rocky Mountain bighorn to the mouflon, d~fferenceswere observed in the number of bands (Fig. 2F). The mouflon pattern consic-ed of 2 closely spaced upper bands, whereas p el son's and Rocky Mountain bighorn had only 1 occurring in the same gel region.

The karyotype of els son's bighorn closely resembles that of the dall sheep, 2. dalli dalli (Nadler, 1971) the Stone sheep, _0. d. stonei (recently karyotyped by us), the Rocky Mountain bighorn. 0.. c.- canadensis (Wurster and Benirschke, 1968), the mouflon,

DESERT BIGHOKN COUNC LL 973 TRANSACTIONS Figure 1, Karyotype of a el son's bighorn ram.

Figure 2, Isoelectric fractionation in pH range 6-8: (A) fresh els son's bighorn hemolysate; (B) frozen and air-dried els son's bighorn hemolysate; (C) fresh and frozen Hbg B of domestic sheep; (D) fresh and frozen hemolysates of Rocky Mountain bighorn; (E) fresh hemolysate of Stone sheep; and (F) frozen mouflon hemolysate. DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS -0. musimon (Schmitt and Ulbrich, 196S), the Iranian wild sheep 2~=54(Nadler et al., 1971) and the domestic sheep, 0. aries (Buttle and Hancock, 1966). Similar- ities of chromosome number and morp&logy between these morphologically distinct groups suggest that the chromosome structural arrangement of 2N=54 is relatively stable and that less subtle genetic changes have occurred in the evolution of the North American wild sheep.

Similarities of karyotypes between North American and Eurasian sheep may be the result of convergent evolution. Although these groups supposedly evolved indep- ' endent of each other, biologically they are very similar and many are highly interfertile. Reciprocal crosses between Rocky Mountain bighorn and mouflon result in fertile F1 hvbrids of both sexes (Gray, 1972). Hybridization also has been common ly reported to occur between Rocky Mountain bighorn X domestic and mouflon X domestic in areas where domestic sheep co-inhabit wild sheep ranges. There is some evidence that one source of domestic sheep origin was the mouflon, which would explain the close affinity between these groups (Zeuner, 1963). However, this is very unlikely with the Rocky Mountain bighorn.

Cowan (194t2) postulated that the North American sheep evolved from ancestral stock inhabiting northeastern Asia ir early Pleistocene or late Pliocene times. Unfor- tunately there has been no cytogenic analyses of the Asiatic bighorns. To the southeast of this group are the argalis, with 2. ammon nigrimontana having a 2N=54. Cowan (1940) aiso suggested that the el son's bighorn and dall sheep are the most primitive of North American wild sheep. He was later supported by ~eist's (1971) hypothesis on wild sheep evolution. Based on studies involving primarily morphology and behavior of wild sheep, Geist (1971) stated that Stone sheep and Rocky Mountain bighorr,~are the most advanced forms.

~eist's(1971) approach to wild sheep evolution varies somewhat from that described by Nadler (1971). Whereas Nadler suggested that the ancestral stock (2~=58-60) may have been of Asian origin, Geist began with the aoudad (Armnotragus lervia), which cmonly inhabits the southern countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. He then proceeded through an "amon cline", ending with 0. 5. ammon (native to southwestern Siberia), in a total of 8 stepwise sequences. The karyology would follow this sequence 23=1:58, 2:54, 4:58, 5:561, 6:56?, 7:56, and 8:56? Going - from a 2N=58 (~oudador Barbary sheep) to that of 54 (0. orientalis gmelini) in the first step is totally possible by centric fusion and with a 2N=56 intermediate. The intermediate may have become extinct or genetically discipated populations in Iran that represented different 2N chromosome numbers (i.e, 2N=54x56 with F1 hybrids having 57 chromosomes, etc.). Going from a 54 to a 58 would be the reverse process. Whatever the origin may have been, Asian or North African, the sequential reduction of ~hromosomenumbers is characteristic of both hypotheses.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS 'he use of isoelectric focusing in detecting hemoglobin types has been reported to le more sensitive than other conventional electrophoretic methods. Jeppsson and ierglund (1972) were able to resolve small charge differences in human hemoglobins hat would have gone undetected by conventional electrophoresis, This is probably he reason we were able to detect differences between hemoglobin ?atterns of wild heep of North America (i.e. Rocky Mountain bighorn, el son's bighorn and Stone 'heep) from that of mouflon. The hemoglobin pattern characteristic of 2 urials ampled in Pakistan (to be reported later) was very similar to mouflon hemoglobin. soelectric focusing may separate the North American sheep from many Eurasian types I£ ZN= S4 on hemoglobin differences, re thank the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Wyoming Game and Fish lepartment for assistance and cooperation in collecting blood samples from els son's .nd Rocky Mountain bighorns, respectively.

LITERATURE CITED ieuchner, H.K. 1960. The bighorn sheep in the United States, its past, present and future. Wildl. Soc. Wildl. Mon. No. 4, 174 pp. buttle, H.L., and J.L. Hancock. 1966. The chromosomes of goats, sheep and their hybrids. Res. Vet. Sci. 7:230-231.

:lark, J.L. 1967. The Great Arc of the Wild Sheep. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. 247 pp.

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

Irabkin, D. 1946. The crystallographic and aptical properties of the hemoglobin of man in comparison with those of other species. J. Biol. Chem. 164:703-722. kysdale, J.W., P. Righetti and H.F. Bunn. 1970. The separation of human and animal - hemoglobins by isoelectric focusing in polyacrylamide gel. Biochem. Biophys. Acta. 229:42-50.

I ;eist, V. 1971. Mountain Sheep - A Study in Behavior and Evolution. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicalgo and London. 383 pp.

;ray, A.P. 1972. Mammalian Hybrids. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Farnham Royai, Slough S12 3 BN. England. 262 pp.

IESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS LITERATURE CITED (cont. )

Jeppsson, J.O., and S. Berglund. 1972. Thin-layer isoelectric focusing for haemoglobin screening and its application to haemoglobin malmo. Clin. Chem. Acta. 40:153-158.

Lay, D.M., C.F. Nadler and J.D. Hassinger. 1971. The transferrins and hemoglobins of wild Iranian sheep (Ovis-- Linn.). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 40B:521-529.

Moorhead, P.S., K.D. Nowell, W.J. Mellman, D.M. Battips, and D.A. Hugenford. 1960. Chromosome preparations of leucocytes cultured'from peripheral blood. Exp. Cell Res, 20:613.

Nadler, C,F., D.M. Lay and J.D. Hassinger. 1971. Cytogenetic analysis of wild sheep populations in northern Iran. Cytogenetics. 10:13?-152.

Schmitt, J., and F. Ulbrich, 1968. Die Chromosomen verschieder Caprini (Simpson, 1945 A. Sangetierk. 33: 180-186.

Stormont, C., O.Y. Suzuki, G.E. Bradford and P. King. 1968. A survey of hemoglobins, transferrins and certain red cell antigens in nine breeds of sheep. Genetics 60:363-371.

Vaskov, B., and G. Efremov. 1967. Fourth haemoglobin type in sheep. Nature, Lond. 216:593-594.

van Vllet, G., and T.H.J. Huisman. 1964. Changes in the haemoblogin types of sheep as a response to anaemia. Biochem. J. 93:401-409.

Wrigley, C. 1968. Gel electrofocusing -- a technique for analyzing multiple protein samples by isoelectric focusing. LKB Science Tools. 15:17-22.

Wurster, D.H., and K. Benirschke. 1968. Chromosome studies in the super-family Bovoidea. Chrurnosoma, Berl. 25:152-171.

Zeuner, F.E. 1963. A History of Domesticated Animals. Harper and Row, N.Y. and Evansttm. 56@ pp.

DESERT BIGHORN COTWC TL 1973 TRANSACTIONS PROGRESS AT ARAVAIPA

:obert K. Weaver ~rizonaGame and Fish Department iuma, Arizona 85364

ibstract. Since the construction of the Aravaipa Bighorn Sheep Pasture in 1957, nany ups and downs have been experienced. However, with the present population )f 15 adult and yearling animals, plus 7 new lambs, it appears the original goal nay be reached -- the reintroduction of desert bighorn sheep onto their historic ranges in Arizma.

I total of 13 lambs (5 rams and 8 ewes) have been born in the pasture. Twelve 3f these have been born since 1967. Of the 29 bighorns either born or released in :he pasture prior to the 1973 lambing period, 15 are still living.

3n January 8, 1973, a portion of the enclosure fence was opened, to permit the sheep freedom of movement outside or inside of the enclosure.

The Aravaipa Bighorn Sheep Pasture dates back to 1955, when a cooperative agreement vas made between the Texas and Arizona Game Departments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the Boone and Crocket Club. It was agreed that 50 wild and free-roaming desert bighorn sheep were to be trapped in Arizona -- 25 animals cd be shipped to the Black Gap area of Texas and 25 to be released in the Galiuro Mountains of southeastern Arizona, where bighorn historically occurred but were then absent.

METHODS

In the summer of 1957, a 112-acre enclosure was constructed near Aravaipa Canyon, on the north side of the Galiuros. The enclosure, though relatively small in acreage, ranged in elevation from 3,050 to slightly over 4,000 feet. A large canyon bisected the enclosure and provided excel1,~ntescape cover. The enclosure was constructed with 6-foot Page wire fence, with an additional 2 feet being utilized where the fence encountered outcroppings or bluffs.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS The enclosure was to be utilized as a holding area and breeding pasture. Bighorns were to be acquired through capture operations and released into the enclosure. It was hoped that these sheep would increase-to sufficient numbers where a release into the surrounding habitat could be made. The sheep's tenure in the enclosure would give them a chance to adapt to their new surroundings and different climatic factors, as well as develop rank and leadership in that most members of the group were from different bands.

RESULTS

As indicated in Table 1, bighorns first were released into the pasture in 1958. Between 1958 and 1960, 8 sheep were released, Most of.these were prime adults. The first lamb was born during the winter of 1961. For unknown reasons, various bighorns in the pasture died, 1 by 1, or were lost. By July 1964, there were only 2 rams left,

Various capture methods were used to obtain sheep for the Aravaipa Pasture. The initial 8 animals were trapped at or around waterholes during the hot summer months. Use of Palmer "Cap-Chur" equipment was to no avail, Hope was rekindled in the summer of 1967 that the original goal of the Aravaipa Pasture still might be attained.

Through the persistent efforts of Arizona Game and Fish ~epartment'sJerry Day, Research Biologist, a drug combination for the Palmer C02 "Cap-Churl' rifle was developed and successfully used to capture a bighorn ewe near a watering area. This ewe and a ewe subsequently captured during the summer of 1968 formed the basic mother stock of the present herd. In 1968, the herd included 1 8-year-old ram, 2 ewes, and a ewe lamb (Table 2). The lamb was the second born in the pasture, and the first since the new stock was released in 1967.

Preferred target animals for the capture operations were yearlings or 2-year-olds. Reactions of Loung animals to drugs were more predictable, and voung animals have not yet developed their home ranges or behavioral patterns. For these reasons, it was felt they would adapt better and more quickly to their new environment.

With on-going research to improve bighorn capture techniques, a method of selective1 capturing free-roaming bighorns was developed. The 3 animals ~apturedin February 1971 in the Plomosa Mountains of western Arizona were the first desert bighorn sheep ever captured from the air, utilizing a helicopter and an accepted drug combination. Again, in January of 1-972, 3 bighorns were captured successfully by this method. These 6 animals gave the pasture herd a real "shot in the arm", and boosted its reproductive capabilitv.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 1. Dates, sex, age, source and disposltlon or Dlgnorn sneep placru LLL LUG ULE,L,VIII L)LIC-Lp Pasture in Arizona.

Date -Sex Age Source Disposition- 7-20-5fa Ram 5-6 Kofa Game Range Capture Died prior to June 1959 6-23-5.h Ram 2 I I 11 11 Died by $ept. 1959 7-3-59 Kam 2 I I 11 II Died Oct. 1967 7-5-59 Ewe 5-7 I I t I I1 Died by June 1962 7/61) Ram 6 Hidden Tank, in New Water Mts. Died from drug research work 4/64 7-9-60 Ram lamb II I I 11 Still alive 7/60 Ewe - - II 11 II Remains found Feb. 1964 7/60 Ewe - - II I1 t I Disappeared by summer 1963 Winter '61 Ewe? 1amb Born inside pasture I I 1I 7/67 Ewe lung vrlg. Kofa Game Range Capture Still alive Winter '68 Ewe 1 arnb Born inside pasture 11 7/68 Ewe 2 Kofa Game Range Capture I I Winter '69 Ram lamb Born inside pasture It Winter '69 Ewe 1arnb 11 1I Disappeared & no remains found Winter '70 Ram 1amb II I I Escaped late fall, 1971 Winter '7n Ram 1 arnb 11 II 1I II Winter '70 Ewe 1arnb II . 11 I1 1I 2-16-71 Ewe 10 rnos Plomosa Mts. aerial capture Disappeared by April 1972 2-16-71 Ewe 11-12 mos J # II 11 Still alive 2-17-71 Ewe 12-13 mos I1 11 1t I I Winter '71 Ram I arnb Born inside pasture 1 I Winter '71 Ewe 1arnb 11 11 II Winter '71 Ewe lamb 11 II Disappeared & no remains found 1-29-72 Ram 2 Crater Mts. aerial capture Still alive 1-29-72 Ewe 2 Sauceda Mts. aerial capture II I1 1-30-72 Ewe yrlg 1 I 1I 1 I Winter '72 Ram lamb Born inside pasture 11 Winter '72 Ewe Lamb 11 I1 I1 II Winter '72 Ewe lamb 11 II 11 Died of apparent accidental injur 30-36. Winter ' 73 ? 7 lambs 11 11 I1 Still alive

Beginning in 1969, range utilization information was collected in the pasture to determine a safe forage carrying capacity for the bighorns. Through several years . data, it was estimated that the pasture could support 15 adult and yearling animals without the vigor and productivity of the preferred plant species being itamaged. Thus, the pasture's carrying capacity could be reached by the fall of 1972.

Based on the attainment of the pasture's carrying capacity, a release plan was formulated, A section of the pasture fence would be cut and tied back. The bighorn then could range outside of the pasture, although no attempt would be made to drive them out. The sheep, in their normal movements in the pasture, would locate the opening. It was felt that the sheep would adapt better to the "outside world" if they were provided the opportunity to venture out and then return to the security of the pasture when desired. Also, with the passing of time, their dependence upon the pasture should diminish.

On January 8,1973, a 10-foot. section of the pasture fence was cut and fastened back. An area on sloping smooth rock was chosen for the opening to help prevent domestic stock from entering the pasture.

Some weeks later it was determined that several sheep had ventured out of the pasture through the opening, but had returned, as all of the bighorns were observed inside the pasture.

During the months prior to the lambing period, all of the sheep usually remained inside the pasture. The 7 lambs born during the winter of 1973 were dropped in the traditional lambing areas inside. When the lambs are older and have developed more stamina, it is speculative as to what the herd's movements will be. However, it is hoped that they will establish their home ranges in the more rugged terrain surrounding the pasture.

SUMMARY

In conclusion. several items of interest will be mentioned. Lamb production in the pasture from 1968 through 1973 was 100 percent for all eligible ewes. This is based on the presumption that a ewe normally does not breed until she is 2.5 years old. Only one exception to this occurred in the pasture. The ewe lamb born during the winter of 1968 was conceived by a yearling ewe and dropped near her second birthday. Hohever. it was observed that ewes normally do not breed until their second year.

DESERT RTGH0R.D COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONC A total of 13 lambs (5 rams and 8 ewes) have been born in the pasture, with 12 of these having been born since the 1968 lambing period. Seven lambs were born in

1973. Of a total of 29 bighorns released or born in the pasture, 15 are still ' living.

Predation and predator control should be mentioned. No record or observation has been made of any predator killing a sheep residing in the Aravaipa Pasture. Abun- dant coyote sign has been observed inside, as.well as 1 bobcat. There have been 2 occasions when a mountain lion was observed within a mile of the pasture. But, no sign has been found next to or inside of the enclosure fence. One of these lions was trapped. In an effort to reduce total numbers of coyotes in the vicinity of the pasture, 1080 baits were used during the winter months. This reduced total numbers of coyotes,but in no way eliminated the threat of coyote predation on bighorns.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS SURVEY OF POTENTIAL BlGHO-RN HABITATS ON

1NATInNAi # 1 n .'lrlLUWUI\LLRFCni IRfW LAND IN THE SOUTHWEST

Jim Yoakum Wildlife Management Biologist Bureau of Land Management Reno, Nevada 89502

Abstract. A survey was made of potential bighorn sheep re-introduction sites on national resource lands in California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico. For 65% of these lands where planning had been accomplished, a total of 91 sites were identified as potential bighorn habitat. Nevada alone had 50 possible sites. The survey disclosed that 10 million acres of historic bighorn range in northwestern Nevada presently are uninhabited by bighorns; however, there are 7 potential re-introduction sites. Two of these are relatively free of multiple-land-use conflicts and available for transplants. It was postulated, based upon today's knowledge and experience in successful transplant endeavors and the availability of public lands for the re-establishment of bighorns, that re-introductions of native wild sheep conceivably could double present bighorn populations in the Southwest (Figure 1).

INTRODUCTION

Native bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) ranged throughout the Southwest for eons prior to the arrival of the white man (Figure 2). However, during the past century, bighorn populations have been extirpated in many areas and decreased until they inhabit approximate!^ 10% of their pristine ranges (Buechner, 1960:6; Morgan, 1973:33).

Within the past 2 decades, the downward trend for wild sheep populations in some parts of the West has been revers'ed as a result of restocking historic ranges with native bighorns (Yoakum, 1963 and 1971). Examples are reported for Oregon (Deming, 1961), California (Blasidell, 1973), Nevada (Richardson, 1973, Papez and Tsukamoto, 1973). Texas (Hailey, 1971), Montana (Yoakum, 1963:124), South Dakota (Nachtegal, 1961:4), and North Dakota (Anonymous, 1961:27). These reports of successful bighorn re-introductions prompted this inventory of remaining habitats with potential for restocking bighorns. Lands surveyed were national resource lands, that is, public lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Figure 1. The first California bighorn to set foot on historic Nevada rangelands leaves the truck, July 22, 1968, at the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service photo by Jack L. ~ichardson.) Bighorn ~nhobited range

Figure 2. ?robable distribuVLanof bighorn sheep in 5 southwestern states prior to the arrival of the white man (8uechner 1960:15).

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS ii; Ca?iforr;ia, Nevada, Ariz~fia,Utah, sfid tiew Mexico. The study was =ccomnlinhoilI------during 1973, utilizing information received from BLM field offices.

SURVEY TROCEDURES

A questionnaire was sent to the BLM State Offices in the Southwest requesting data regarding areas potentially suitable for the re-introduction of native bighorns, based upon the following criteria: 1. Historic bighorn ranges as identified in ~uechner's(1960) monograph. 2. Area presently contains adequate available waters and a mixture quality and quantity plant cornunity of grass, £orbs and browse. 3. Identified potential areas to be based upon above 2 biological factors and not to be eliminated for political, economical, or other reasons at this time.

Item 3 was accomplished through the BLM'S in-depth planning system or "Management Framework Plant1(MF'P), which includes the following procedures: Dividing all lands into geographical Planning Units. Conducting inventories of natural resources. Including all natural resource inventories, physical, sociological, and economic data in 1 report, the Unit Resource Analysis (URA). For wildlife, this would be placed in categories of (a) present wildlife numbers and habitat conditions, and (b) management potential for either 3 species or its habitat. The URA is fh)rwarded to the Management Framework Plan, whose major components are: (a) Step 1 - all the possible recommendations for each resource activity (wildlife. range, lands, minerals, etc.) that would be most advantageous for each resource. In other words, only single use resource recommendations at this time. (bl Step 2 - recommendations with alternatives most favorable for multiple-use management of resources to meet the needs and values of the lands and people. (c) Step 3 - final multiple-use decisions, chosen with public review and participation.

For purposes of this survey, the BLM field offices were requested to supply information on potential bighorn re-introduction locations by the following 2 categories: - 1. Numbers of different areas and acres identified in inventories and URA'S. 2. Numbers of different areas identified up to Step 3 of the MFP'S.

FINDINGS

All BLM offices in the 5 southwestern states replied to the questionnaire. This included inventory and URA data completed for an estimated 65% of the national

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS resource lands. Only 1 field office, the Winnemucca District in Nevada, provided 2ompleted planning data for Step 3 of the MFP. Since the Southwest is inhabited 5y 5 subspecies of native bighorns, no attempt was made to differentiate subspecies. Besides, earlier publications reported by Yoakum (1963) documented that bighorn subspecies have been successfully re-established thousands of miles from their xigina1 ranges.

?ive Southwest States

I total of 91 potential re-introduction sites identified to date is provided in rable 1. These locations are graphically portrayed in Figure 3. Most of the sites are towards the center of historically occupied bighorn ranges (see Figure 2). Locations of successful re-introductions of native bighorns accomplished during the ?ast 20 years also are plotted on Figure 3.

Cable 1 presents data concerning today's bighorn situation, and estimated sheep lumbers and acreages.

Nevada

There are presently 45 million acres in Nevada administered by the BLM, of which 1 million (2%) are inhabited by an estimated 700 bighorns.

Table 2 summarizes data for Nevada, which has 51 potential bighorn re-introduction sites on an estimated 4.5 million acres. The northeastern corner of the State lacks completed inventories; consequently, the area was not included in the survey.

One of the best pictures of detailed planning for a BLM District Office can be obtained by analyzing the MFP completed for the Winnemucca District in northwestern Nevada. The District contains 10 million acres, of which 8 million are national resource lands. According to Buechner (1960:15), all of this was within historic bighorn range during pristine times. No bighorns now exist here, nor have they for over 40 years. Within the past 15 years, bighorns have been transplanted to the north, west, 2~dsouth of the District (Figure 4).

Table' 3 discloses that the URA for bighorn habitat in the Winnemucca District identified 7 sites, with 2 million acres as potentially suitable habitat for the re-introduction of natiire bighorns. The MFP identified possible major multiple-use conflicts on 5 of these sites, leaving 2 as potential re-introduction sites today. These 2 sites in~lude630,000 acres, or about 30% of the total potential acreage.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 1. Present bighorn situation and potential re-introduction sites for national resource lands in the Southwest.

n-c--cd -1 Un'L4tat Present Sftuatfsw S U LCSllL IQA AAQU I LCL L Estimated Number / Total 21 Number Estimated number big- bighorns acres of sites acres habitat State horns on in total bighorn (based upon data national for State habitat gathered in this resource (1970) in State report) lands

Arizona 3,000 3,000 14,000,000 ! 4 170,000

California 3,000 3,650 2,500,000 13 340,000

Nevada

New Mexico

Utah 300 850 2,600,000 8 700,000

Total 7,020 10,215 25,350,000 91 6,382,000

-1/ (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1973) -2/ (Monson 1971) -31 (Colorado State University 1969) .

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS @ Successful re-establishment sites.

X Potential re-introduction sites.

Figure 3. Approximate location of 91 potential bighorn re-introduction sites on BL;M administered lands in the Southwest.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 2. Present bighorn situation and potential re-establishment sites for national resource lands in Nevada.

I !

Present Situation Potential Habitat BLM District Estimated 1/ Estimated acres Number Estimated

number bigho& inhabited by sites acres habitat ,

Winnemucca 0

Carson City 0

Las Vegas 650 750,000 7 255,000

Battle Mtn. 10 44,000 . 8 395,000

Sus anville 17 21 1,700 8 368,000 Total 7 12 910,700 51 4,461,000

-1/ Bureau of Land Management 1973. -2/ This is one herd in an enclosure on the Sheldon National Antelope Range.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Figure 4. The first bighorn rain caught in Nevada during the Nevada De~artmer~tG£ Fish and Gaas'a bighorn sheep transplant program. (Photo by Nevada Dzpartment of Fish and Game.) Table 3. Planning data in relation to potential bighorn re-introductions in the Winnemucca BLM District (does not include acreages on the Sheldon Antelope Game Range).

Estimated MFP Findings Potential Habitat Site Number Acres Multiple-Use conflicts Final recommendation 1. Jackson Mt. 230,000 Mining OK in MFP to plan

2. Pine Forest Range 400,000 Few, if any OK in MFP to plan

3. Granite Range .280,000 Livestock Not yet--other use con£ lict s

4. Humboldt Range 150,000 Livestock * Not yet--other use con£licts 5. Tobin Range 350,000 Livestock . Not yet--other use con£ licts

6. Sonoma Range 150,000 Livestock ' Not yet--other use con£licts 7. Wilder-Bilk Range 200,000 Livestock Not yet--other use con£licts Total 1,760,000

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS DISCUSS ION

Today wildlife and public land managers are more and more frequently asked the following questions regarding bighorn management: 1. What were the reasons the bigh~rndecreased 90% during the last century? 2. Would the reasons the bighorn decreased so drastically be a justification to not re-introduce bighorns today? 3, Do managers today have the knowledge or experience to successfully transplant native bighorns? 4. Are there ranges today lacking wild sheep, but in good enough condition for the re-introduction of bighorns?

These are all good questions and each warrants a thorough answer in order to understand where we are today in making decisions regarding how the bighorn and its ranges can or should be managed, Therefore, the following is an analysis of known information regarding each of these questions: The reasons why the bighorn decreased so drastically during the last century were each or a combination of all of the following: (a) excessive hunting, (b) a disease known as scabies, (c) competition with livestock, and (d) the restriction or loss of original habitat for various causes to meet the white man's demands for land (agricultural farming, waters piped for domestic needs, development of homes, towns, etc.). The reasons cited for the drastic bighorn decrease could be reasons why they may not respond favorably to re-introduction in some areas today; however, there are other ranges where these factors are not a major problem. Today, resource management practices are more favorable to bighorns than they were a century ago. Examples of this are: livestock diseases, such as scabies, are a minor factor due to new medicines; and there have been major reductions in domestic sheep use of rangelands. Also, during the past couple of decades, some ranges have increased in both quality and quantity of desired forage for bighorns, due to improved methods of range management. ~oday'swildlife manager has both technical knowledge and experience in methods of transplanting bighorns successfully. This is proved by the number of successful re-introductions conducted during the past 20 years in Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. The detailed planning procedures prior to, during, and after making transplants reported by Wilson et al. (1973) is evidence of tried and tested available technical and scientific knowledge. As to whether or not there are ranges available for re-introducing bighorns- well, that is the purpose of this paper. Based upon the findings of this survey, it is apparent there are national resource lands available and ready for the re-introduction of native bighorns, They are (a) original historic bighorn ranges, (b) presently rated as having both quality and quantity requirements for bighorn habitat, and (c) relatively free from multiple-use

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS conflicts that would be dztrbental t~ a successful bighorn re-introduction, Areas meeting these criteria appear to be about 30% of the total available habitat on BLM administered lands. This statement is made knowing that one- third of the national resource lands are not included in the survey, nor are all of the lands under the administration of the Forest Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Park Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ranges in military reservations, or ranges under State governments and private ownership.

Taking the State of Nevada alone and analyzing known information, it can be stated that: Some 700 bighorns inhabit 750,000 acres of national resource lands, or about 1 bighorn per 1,000 acres. These figures are based upon wild sheep in the southern half of the State, which has ranges of a.lower carrying capacity than the northern half of the State (a herd of 8 bighorns survived and increased 250% in a 1,700-acre enclosure in northwestern Nevada during the past 5 years). Since Nevada has approximately 4.5 million acres of potential habitat suitable for re-introductions of native bighorns, of which possibly 20% (or about 1 million acres) is available without major conflicts with other multiple-uses of the land, therefore, It is postulated that bighorn populations may be increased in the State through re-introduction on public lands as follows: a. Today there are 700 bighorns inhabiting 700,000 acres. b. Today there is a possibility of 1,000 bighorns on the potential 1,000,000 acres. c. Therefore, ~evada'sbighorn population could be increased 140%.

Although the above.postulation may at first seem unrealistic, bear in mind the following 2 facts: 1. Within sight of Nevada, the Oregon Game Commission transplanted a herd of 20 bighorns that increased over 200% in the first 5 years, and within 20 years -- produced progeny for 3 successful transplants in Oregon, 1 to Nevada, which in turn resulted in a transplant to California, and. from the same herd produced sufficient trophy rams for 7 successful hunting years (resulting in the harvest of 21 rams) -- all within less than a 20-year period. 2, That the national resource lands in Nevada have, through a process of detailed land planning procedures, identified ranges suitable for the . re-introduction of native bighorns. Since these public lands belong to the people, as does also the wildlife, these public lands should and could be producing larger numbers of bighorn populations to meet the demands, needs, and wishes of the public.

DESERT BIG'HORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS LITERATURE CITED

Anonymous. 1961. Dakota sheep population increases. Wildlife Review (British Columbia). 7(2). Blaisdell, J. 1973. Ovis on the rocks ...with'a little help from my friends. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 17z(In Press),

Buechner, HeK. 1960. The bighorn sheep in the United States, its past, present, and future. Wildl. Monographs. 4:l-174.

Colorado State University, 1969. Fish and wildlife resources on the public lands. Public Land Law Review Corn. Report, Wash., D.C.

Deming, 0. 1961. 1960 bighorn sheep transplants at Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 5:.56-57.

Hailey, T.L. 1971. Reproduction and release of Texas transplanted desert bighorn sheep. Desert Bighorn Council Trans, 15:97-100.

Monson, G. 1971. Distribution and abundance, In: Desert bighorn, its ecology and management. Desert Bighorn Council, ~a>e~as, Nev. (preliminary draft) . Morgan, J.K. 1973. Bighorn profile. Audubon. 75(6):4-15.

Nachtegal, R. 1961. Department introduces new game varieties. South Dakota Conser. Digest, 28(2):2-6,

Papez, N.J. and G.K. Tsukarnoto. 1970. The 1969 sheep tagging and transplant program in Nevada. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 14:43-50.

Richardson, J.L. 1973, California bighorn sheep re-introduction to the Charles Sheldon Antelope Range. Cal-Neva Wildlife Trans. 8:56-59.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1973. Public land statistics. U.S. Gov't. Printing Office, Wash., D.C. 191 pa . 1973. Annual wildlife report for 1972 fiscal year. Reno, Nevada. 6 p.

Wilson, L.O., J. Day, J, Helvie, G. Gates, T.L. Haily, and G.K. Tsukamoto. 1973. Guidelines for capturing and re-establishing desert bighorns. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 17:(In Press).

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS LITERATURE CITED (cont.)

Yoakum, J. 1963. Re-establishing native bighorn ranges. Desert Bighorn Council Trans. 7:122-125.

. 1971. Habitat manage'ment for desert bighorns. North American Bighorn Confer. Trans. 1:158-164.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS GUIDELINES FOR CAPTURING AND RE-ESTABLISHING - DESERT BIGHORNS

Lanny 0. Wilson Jildlife Biologist 3ureau of Land Management ;ants Fe, New Mexico 87501

Terry Day 4rizona Game and Fish Department 'uscon, Arizona 85711

rack Helvie icting Refuge Manager Iesert National Wildlife Range .as Vegas, Nevada 89108

:erald Gates lead, Planning-Environmental Division Jew Mexico Department of Game and Fish janta Fe, New Mexico 87501

!omy L. Hailey 'exas Parks and Wildlife Department farfa, Texas

:eorge K. ~sukamoto levada Department of Fish and Game Leno, Nevada 89502

,bstract. The 7 major categories to be considered in desert bighorn re-introduction lrograms are discussed. These are: (1) Historic Site Selection, (2) Enclosure .ocatCon and Construction, (3) Bighorn Behavior, (4) Trapping Techniques, (5) Heli- :opter and Capture Gun Techniques, (6) Transportation Vehicle and Travel, and :7) Release of Bighorns. Specific recornendations are made and briefly discussed. 'hese recommendations have been used in the capture of more than 50 desert bighorns,

IESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS with only 2 mortalities occurring prior to their release in enclosures. n------Aa&-.------:--A- rrL-:-l.r rrh~..lrl rarl..ma mr\+-t-1 ;tine f~epenned biohnrnn. K~C~T[IIL~~~L~U~LIULIS ale g~vr=r~WL~LLLL DLLWULU LGUU'C-G UIVL LUALLLLU 6"-- -- - Recommendations should be based upon the biological requirements of bighorn pop-. ulations, rather than upon administrative policies or procedures. This should greatly enhance the probabilities of a successful bighorn restoration program.

There are many publications on kapturing and transplanting desert bighorn sheep. This is not an attempt to consolidate these papers, nor do the authors intend to say this is the absolute gospel as to how to capture, handle, and transport every desert bighorn. It is recognized that each desert bighorn is an entity unto itself, with unique habitat, behavioral, and other characteristics. The purpose of this paper is to provide a set of guidelines for bighorn restoration programs.

The authors have worked with different desert bighorn populations, and they have had diverse experiences with these populations. Following the recommendations, which are based upon their experiences, should result in successful capture and restoration programs. Exceptions to their recommendations should be based upon biological data - - not upon administrative considerations.

RECOMMENDATIONS, METHODS, AND DISCUSSIONS

Historic Site Selection

Desert bighorns are known to have inhabited many areas in the Southwest which they no longer occupy. Many of these areas are being considered for bighorn restoration programs. Many factors need to be considered in restoring bighorns into these areas.

1. Thoroughly research old documents, reports, journals of early pioneers, and books which will document historic bighorn ranges. This is a most important consideration in bighorn restoration programs, yet one easily overlooked. Areas historically occupied by desert bighorns generally are known, but too often the full extent of their range is not known or determined (Buechner, 1960). Intensive research on desert bighorn populations has been undertaken only during the past 20 years, and in areas where bighorns remain primarily because of their remoteness which usually is associated with extremely rough, inaccessible terrain. Therefore, bighorn management procedures are based primarily upon studies of remnant bighorn populations.

The following should emphasize the problem. Approximately 10 miles west of Soda Springs, Idaho, on the northern extremity of the Cache National Forest, is an area called Sheep Point. During the 1800's pioneers traveling the Oregon Trail

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS reported bighorns in this area in their journals and diaries. Further, many mentioned seeing bighorns on the adjacent plaina, as well as on Sheep Point. Thus, it appears the flat areas adjacent to the mountainous terrain were an important component of the bighorn's habitat. Today Sheep Point resembles little of what presently is considered quality bighorn habitat.

Determine the factors responsible for the decline of former bighorn populations, and take precautions so that the same factors will not reoccur if bighorns are re-introduced. Factors known to be responsible for the extirpation of some bighorn populations are: diseases introduced by domestic livestock, changes in vegetation caused by livestock grazing and climatic changes, urbanization and encroachment by man upon bighorn habitats, construction of net-wire fences which restrict bighorn migrations and seasonal movements, illegal hunting, and loss of water sources.

Determine what dominant plant communities existed on historic bighorn areas, and substantiate that the same or similar plant communities exist on re-introduction sites. Heavy livestock grazing has been responsible for reverting many climax plant communities to earlier successional stages. For example, sagebrush (Artemisia z.),mesquite (Prosopis SJ.), creosote bush (Larrea =.),and other shrubs increase on grasslands which have been overgrazed by livestock. Loss of top soil normally accompanies overgrazing. In some cases so much top soil has been lost that climax communities cannot become reestablished. And, the most productive bighorn populations on the North American Continent today are found on areas of climax vegetation (Geist, 1971).

Determine the land status of historic bighorn areas and obtain cooperative agreements which will define management practices and insure the future welfare of re-introduced bighorns. Cooperative agreements are necessary when one or more agencies are involved in the management of a desert bighorn area, particularly when one agency is responsible for animal management and another for habitat management. Explicitly stating the management responsibilities for each agency in a cooperative agreement will reduce the possibilities of future misunderstand- ings. This is particularly true over long-time periods and when personnel changes occur within the agencies.

Undertake an effective predator control erogram prior to and during the first year when desert bighorns are re-introduced into an area. Bighorns released into a new area are more vulnerable to predation than animals familiar with the terrain and its escape routes. Animals also are under considerable stress when trying to adapt to a new area. Harrassment by predators only magnifies the stress of a new area. The loss of 2 or 3 dominant ewes from a family group could result in the failure of a re-introduction program.

IESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS 6. Habitat characteristics of bighorn capture and release sites should be as similar as possible. Similar capture and release sites can be a significant factor. For example, water sources usually are similar in areas of similar geologic formations. Bighorns in habitats of sandstone formations obtain water from natural tanks formed in large slick rock areas and from springs found primarily on talus slopes, while bighorns living in granite areas obtain most of their water from springs in canyon and arroyo bottoms. Rarely are natural tanks formed in slick rock of granitic origin. Thus, water sources on the 2 habitat types differ greatly. This perhaps could explain why bighorns released in supposedly high quality habitats often have moved several miles and established themselves in margina1,less desirable habitats. Bighorns evidently seek habitats similar to those with which they are familiar.

Other habitat differences can pose problems to introduced bighorns. Predator behavior may be different, salt licks may or may not exist or be located in unfamiliar situations, poisonous plants may be different, and parasites and diseases to which the introduced sheep have no immunity may be present.

7. Bighorns from areas different in habitat characteristics than the re-introductioc site should be kept for a minimum of two years in an approximately 640-acre enclosure. The enclosure should include a variety of subtypes within the major habitat types. Reasons for this recommendation were presented in 6. Retaining the animals for 2 years should result in 2 generations of lambs being born, whict- will have been imprinted with the new habitat.

8. Bighorns introduced into areas where a seasonal and/or an elevational distribution may occur during the course of a year should be ,placed a minimum of two years in an enclosure located on a winter range which has lambing ground characteristics, and which is not occupied by other ungulate populations such

-. as of deer or cattle. Bighorns inhabiting areas where a definite seasonal distribution occurs, normally return to the same winter ranges. Seasonal movements and routes are learned by the younger sheep from following the older animals. Bighorn ewes also normally return to the same areas (lambing grounds) to lamb each year. By retaining introduced bighorns for 2 years in an enclosure on a winter range having lambing ground characteristics, 2 generations of lambs will be imprinted to the area. This will enhance the possibility of the area becornin; a traditional wintering and lambing ground.

Such areas should not be on winter ranges heavily used by deer or other ungulate populations. Competition for food, water, cover, and space could become critica Studies also have shown that bighorns will not remain on areas heavily used by other ungulates (Welles, 1961 and Wilson, 1968).

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Enclosure Location, Construction, and Desert Bighorn Numbers

It usually is difficult to capture sufficient numbers of desert bighorns to reintroduce immediately onto historic ranges. Thus, bighorns usually are retained in an enclosure until sufficient numbers have been propogated for release. Therefore, in addition to previously discussed factors, it is important that others be considered.

1. The enclosure should be located on high ground with-good drainageLwith breaks in terrain, consisting of rock outcroppings and areas of cove;. Areas of high ground usually have some rocky areas and coarse soils. Bighorn normally select these areas for resting, are more at ease on them, and generally acclimate faster on such areas. This is particularly true if there are a number of steep rocky outcroppiegs (escape terrain) to which the bighorns may retreat when alarmed. Also, the rock outcrop areas and/or adjacent areas probably will be used as lambing grounds.

Areas of flat or rolling country often do not have rocky outcrops or coarse soils. The hooves of sheep on such terrain may lengthen, resulting in lame- ness.

Areas that are not well drained tend to hold water for long periods, and wet areas can be conducive to parasitism and diseases such as enterotoxemia.

Areas of cover, such as mesquite clumps, pockets of juniper trees, rock ledges and/or caves, afford protection to aheep during storms. They also provide shade during hot periods.

2. The enclosure should provide native year-round forage, although supplemental feeding and salting may be necessary. It is important that the bighorns have native year-round forage. It is equally important that they be kept in prime condition. Bighorns- in enclosures are not able to move to different locations during periods of stress, such as droughts, periods of excessive co-ld, or of heavy snow fall. Under such conditions, supplemental feeding should be supplied - in order to keep the animals in prime condition and to make them less susceptible to parasites and diseases.

Mineral salts also should be provided, as the enclosure area may be deficient in one or more minerals, and particularly trace elements. A trace element salt, such as a dicalcium-phosphate salt, should be provided. In Texas, 15 bighorns used 50 to 60 pounds ofMoorman mintrate salt per month. No lamb mortality occurred after the salt was placed in the enclosure and reproduction remained high (Hailey, 1962 and 1964).

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TBANSACTIONS Enclosures should be constructed of 2 x 4-inch welded wire, be a minimum of 8 feet high, and should encompass not less than 640 acres for each 25 bighorns. Welded 2 x 4-inch wire is superior to woven wire. Ewes and lambs have been caught by the head and horns in woven wire fences, and a ewe died of a broken neck in a paddock constructed of woven wire at the Desert National Wildlife Range. Welded wire also will deter people from climbing or hanging onto fences.

No reports indicate that bighorns can cross an 8-foot high fence.

The larger the fenced area, the better the chances of successfully raising bighorns in captivity which will retain their natural behavioral and wild instincts. Animals reared in confined areas are more vulnerable to predation and accidents after release.

Predators should be removed from enclosures ~riorto releasing bi~hornsin YY them, and an effective predator control program should be maintained in areas where bighorns are being maintained. The bottom of the enclosure fence should be buried, and an electric wire should be installed about 12 inches out from -C--C and at a right angle to the top of the woven wire, These precautions resulted in a total of 80 bighorns being raised from 6 desert bighorn originally introduced in an enclosure in Texas. No mortality from predation occurred in this enclosure during its 14-year history.

An electric wire at the top of the fence will keep mountain lions and bobcats from climbing over. Burying the bottom of the fence deters most predators from digging under the fence. Three desert bighorn in an enclosure in Hawthorne, Nevada were killed by a mountain lion(s) and 2 from unknown causes in a two- day period (Tsukamoto et. al., 1970).

Water developments within enclosures should be designed'so that the water can be regulated. Water developments must be designed so that the water can be regulate; to insure that troughs can be cleaned and maintained at periodic intervals to reduce parasitism and disease possibilities. It also is important that all but 1 of the water sources can be shut off to enable the capture of sick and/or injured animals for treatment, or for release from the enclosure.

If the water can be regulated, Tetracycline powder also can be added to help prevent pneumonia. Tetracycline powder can be purchased from any veterinary clinic or supplier. Oral medications administered in this manner eliminates the stress to animals from being handled.

Public access to and around bighorn enclosures should be developed so as to restrict visitors to limited areas. Unrestricted public access and use adjacent to enclosures may stress enclosed bighorns. This can lead to sheep injuries or death, particularly during the breeding and lambing seasons.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS 7. Valium (Diayetam) can be used in feeds to drug bighorns when they need to be treated for injuries andlor diseases and parasites. Twenty percent Valium in 0.5-inch range cubes (Godbold Incorporated, Marfa, Texas) has been used to drug desert bighorns in Texas. No mortality occurred. However, a ram which ate a considerable number of the treated cubes remained drugged for 72 hours, but recovered without ill effects. Only a veterinarian with a narcotics license can purchase valium. ? Sheep drugged with Valium must be held in an upright or standing position to prevent strangulation from vomit. To prevent bloating, a rubber hose usually has to be placed down the throat into the stomach of the drugged sheep.

Valium also can be used to capture bighorns for transplanting them from enclosures, but this usually will not be necessary if the recommendations outlined in the "Transportation Vehicle and Travel to Release Site" section are followed.

Bighorn Behavioral Considerations

Desert bighorn behavioral studies are limited at present, but desert bighorn social and behavioral characteristics are known. The following recommendations are based upon existing desert bighorn behavioral data.

1. Females and young bighorns from the same family or social group should be captured. Less social strife will occur among re-introduction groups if the animals "know" each other. Also, dominance will have been established within family groups, which will reduce the possibility of injuries occurring because of dominance interactions between bighorns who are "strangers" to each other.

2. If family groups cannot be captured, an effort should be made to utilize bighorns 1 to 3 years of age and no animals over 8 years old. Most 1 to 3-year- old bighorns are still in the learning process and are more adaptable to change than older animals. They generally are healthier and less vulnerable to diseases and parasites, are easier to separate from a herd when using a helicopter for capturing. Juvenile bighorn immobilize faster, are easier to handle when drugged, and are less likely to go into shock than older sheep. Usually they quiet down faster when placed with other bighorns and, therefore, are less likely to become injured.

3. Bighorns captured from various areas within a population, or bighorn captured from different populations, should be placed in an enclosure for at least 2 years so they can establish family and social groups before being released into a new habitat. Bighorns from different family groups and particularly from different areas will tend to keep away from each other when initially placed together in an

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS ' enclosure. This undoubtedly would occur if they were released in the wild, which could spell failure for the re-introduction program. In Texas, bighorns from 2 areas which were placed in a lo-acre enclosure did not mingle for over 2 months. Similarly, bighorns placed in an enclosure in Nevada did not mingle with each other for an even longer time. Such behavior predominates in ewes and younger animals, but appears to be less marked with rams.

4. A minimum of 12 bighorns should be released in an enclosure, and a minimum of 20 bighorns released in areas of extensive habitat, with a 1:3 ram:ewe ratio. The above stated numbers were determined from reviewing results of -bighorn releases throughout the Rocky Mountain and Inter-Mountain Region. In general, releases of 20 or more bighorn into historic ranges have been the most successful. The suggested ram:ewe ratio should insure that inbreeding does not become a limiting factor in the initial release. Having a higher ram:ewe ratio could result in excessive fighting between rams and/or excessive harrassment of ewes by rams during the rut.

5. Approximately every 5 years during the initial 20 years of a re-introduction program an adult ram from another population, but of the same subspecies, should be released with the introduced population. Although inbreeding in bighorn populations has never been documented, introducing a breeding ram from different genetic stock will reduce the possibilities of inbreeding. Although not documented, inbreeding could be a factor in the low productivity of many wild desert bighorn populations. Crossing different genetic stocks may result in more vigorous bighorn populations and produce more thrifty lambs. This technique has been used by livestock breeders for centuries, but rarely has been considered in wildlife populations.

Crossing different subspecies, such as crossing Ovis canadensis nelsoni with -0. c.- mexicana is not recommended. Subs,pecies or races should be maintained in a genetically pure state.

Capture Techniques There are 2 proven methods for capturing desert bighorns; trapping and drugging. The major advantage of trapping is that family groups are normally caught, whereas there is little chance to do so with a capture gun.

The advantages of using the capture gun are: (1) Animals can be selected. (2) They can be caught during cooler weather when they are less susceptible to shock. (3) She can be collected in a variety of terrains and habitats. (4) Preparations can be made with relatively short notice.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Trapping Considerations

1. An established, regularlyhornwatering site which lends itself to the construction of a trap measuring not less than 20 x 40 feet and accessible by vehicle should be selected. Watering areas are the only sites where positively desert bighorns can be located. If there are other watering sources in the locality of the trap site, they should be made unavailable to bighorns until after the trapping operation.

Thirty-eight Rocky Mountain bighorns have been captured at a salt lick in New Mexico. The bighorns regularly frequented the salt lick and the area lent to trap construction. Bighorns usually are wary of traps, because they are an unfamiliar structure in a regularly used area. In Texas, 0.5-inch range cubes of 20 percent protein helped lure desert bighorns into a trap. Three-quarter- inch cubes were too large and not used by the sheep. Alfalfa hay and other baits have been tried with little success in several areas in.the Southwest. The use of sweet anise or similar scents have not been tried. These may offer possibilities as baits.

A 20 x 40-foot trap is the smallest in which significant numbers of desert bighorns have been captured. However, it is best to keep the trap as small as possible. This limits the area in which sheep can run and jump, and thus reduces the possibilities of injury. Also, it is much easier to hand-catch bighorns in a small trap, and it minimizes harassment.

Access by vehicle to the trap is almost essential. Quickly moving the animals from the trap to a vehicle reduces the amount of handling, and lessens the stress upon the sheep. This is particularly important if the bighorns are trapped during hot periods, as desert sheep then are more likely to go into shock and die.

I. Permanent traps should be constructed of wooden posts, with 3 x 4-inch mesh brown or black colored nylon netting, which is a minimum of 8 feet high; or else a portable drop gate panel trap should be used. Rectangular traps should be used and they shouldbe attended at all times. Using wooden posts, rather than metal or pipe posts will help to reduce injuries to bighorns. The recommended netting will retain bighorns, yet it will stretch and reduce the impact when hit by bighorns. The use of woven wire or wire of any kind is not acceptable, because of resulting cuts and injuries. "~ondedNylon Seine Twine" (Koring Bros. Incorporated, Long Beach, California), treated with black dye with 8-inch stretch mesh and 4-inch square mesh, #60 medium laid, and 9 feet in height has proven most satisfactory on the Desert National Wildlife Range.

It is much easier to hand-catch animals in a rectangular trap than in a circular one. A triangular trap could result in animals being trampled.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS It is important that the trap is attended at all times, as sheep readily become entangled in the netting and can die in a very short time.

The portable drop gate panel trap was designed by Nevada Department of Fish and Game personnel. Eighteen desert bighorns have been caught with this trap. It is composed of a number of panels, a minimum of 4, each measuring 7 x 10 feet. The framework of each panel is constructed from 1.5-inch pipe, with a drop gate mechanism. The drop bar is constructed from 1.25-inch pipe, with 4 rings attached, and encircling either side of the framework, and allowed to swing freely. Five-inch stretch netting is bound to the top of the panel and to the drop bar. The netting is. attached on either side to 4-inch rings, encircling the 1.5-inch pipe frame. A "Clover" deer trap trip mechanism or an electrical system can be adapted to drop the gates. For the electrical system, overdrive selenoides from 1960 Ford automobiles are attached to the trigger mechanism to drop the gate. The panels are attached to each.other by custom-made clasps, bolted near the corners. Each panel weighs approximately 150 pounds (Tsukamoto, 1970).

Pull or drop gates should be used with permanent traps. Both gate types are simple in construction and are less subject to jamming. Pull gates can be used as a "cuttingtt gate for releasing undesired bighorns.

The drop gate has an advantage. It can be activated by either a manual trip device or by a selenoid.

Bighorns should be hand-carried to the transporting vehicle as soon as possible after being trapped. Loading ramps constructed with net-wire or nylon mesh sides have proven unsatisfactory. Many injuries and deaths have resulted to trapped bighorns. Ewes and small rams are particularly susceptible to catching their horns in wire or mesh netting and thereby breaking their necks. Bighorns general will not go up a loading ramp constructed with solid sides without a great deal of harrassment, and smaller sheep may be trampled.

Quickly carrying hand-captured bighorns to the transportation vehicle also reduces stress on the animals. This is of particular importance during hot periods, when animals are more likely to go into shock.

Sections 14, 15 and 16 in the Helicopter and Capture Gun section deal with treatment of bighorns after capture. Exceptions are those items that pertain to bighorns captured with M-99.

Helico,~terand Ca~tureGun Techniques

1. A B-series Bell- helicopter with a 260 HI) supercharged engine or an equivalent

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS helicopter with an experienced pilot should be used. A helicopter with these specifications is necessary for capturing bighorns with a capture gun at high altitudes and in rugged mountainous terrain. The door of the B-series Bell helicopter can be removed on the passenger side for the gunner.

An experienced pilot is highly recommended, both for safety and to reduce flying time. An experienced pilot can judge when weather conditions are too risky to pursue desert bighorns. Captures should not be considered when wind velocities exceed 15 knots. In New Mexico, an inexperienced pilot needed 3 to 4 hours of flying time, and 4 to 5 practice runs on bighorns in rough terrain.

Only 2 people, the pilot and the gunner, should be allowed in the helicopter. This reduces weight, thus reducing the risk of having an accident.

The Palmer "Cap-Churl' COP gun with open sights, loaded with the designated charge for the projectile syringe, and fired at about a 20 degree angle is recommended. The Palmer "Cap-Chur" gun has been used successfully to capture bighorns in Arizona, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, and Mexico. As long as the rifle is not fired at a bighorn directly-below the helicopter, the down draft created by the rotor blades will not affect the flight of the projectile syringes. Also, shooting straight down will increase the velocity of the dart, which could result in injury or death to bighorns. Shooting at about a 20 degree angle from the helicopter has proven best for obtaining a good hit.

TWO or 3cc projectile syringes with a 0.75-inch long semi-barbed (half the barbs removed) needle should be used. Using the recommended projectile syringes with half the barbs removed will minimize tissue damage. The 0.75-inch long needle is recommended, because longer needles are more subject to becoming plugged, cause more tissue damage, and are more likely to hit bone, thus becoming damaged (Day, 1969).

The following drugs and dosage levels, listed by priority, have proven effective for immobilizing desert bighorns under field conditions. (a) 2 mg. of M-99 (Etorphine)-potent narcotic (American Cyanamid Co.) 15 mg. of Haloanisone-Nuroleptic tranquilizer (Pitman-Moore) 2.5 mg. of Atropine-parasppatholytic agent (Merk) or for ewes - 2.2 mg. of M-99 (Etorphine) 20 mg. of Azaperone (Pitman-Moore) or for rams - 2.5 mg. of M-99 (Etorphine) 20 mg. of Azaperone (b) 2 mg. of M-99 (Etorphine) 30-40 mg. of Azaperone (Pitman-Moore) 2.5 mg. of Atropine (Merk)

More than 30 desert bighorns have been immobilized in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Mexico, using 1 of the above recommended drugs and dosage levels, with no deaths attributed to the drugs.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS . M-99, Haloanisone and Azaperone are experimental drugs and are not on the market for general use. Animals in'jected with experimental drugs cannot be consumed as meat by humans in the United States.

Approach desert bighorns on their level or from above, then herd them to lower or more level areas, keeping back 30 to 40 yards from the sheep. Ewes and lambs generally will run from 2 to 5 miles before tiring. Therefore, if the animals can be herded to lower elevations, once they tire and 1 is immobilized, the chances of the sheep getting into extremely rough areas where it can become injured are reduced.

Ewes and lambs generally will stop running and will mill about when they reach a verticle bluff. When this happens, approach from.above the bluff and move the sheep downhill. Rams tend to run shorter distances than do ewes and lambs. They then try to hide. Therefore, more caution must be used when pursuing rams.

Never shoot at moving bighorns, and aim to hit the sheep in the hip or rump areas. Chances of hitting a bighorn in the head, neck, or stomach are increased when the animal is running, especially when shooting from a viberating helicopter. Hits in these areas can result in injury or death.

Tired bighorn generally will stop with their rumps or sides toward the helicopter, if not approached too closely. This usually affords a good target at a range of 20 to 25 yards. Bighorns should be hit in the hip or rump area to reduce the possibilities of injuries. Desert bighorns also have the lower legs and abdomen. However, a bighorn hit in the flank and injected with a full dose of M-99 in New Mexico, had to be re-shot after 15 minutes as the original injection had no effect.

After a desert bighorn has been injected with a recommended drug and dosage, a minimum of 15 minutes should be allowed for the drug to take effect. If the animz has shown no signs of ataxia after 20 minutes, it can be re-shot. Bighorn usually will show signs of ataxia within 5 minutes or less after being injected with M-99. Should the niedle of the syringe become plugged, only a partial or no dose of the drug will be injected into the sheep. Re-shooting a bighorn which has received a partial dosage with another full dosage will not endanger the animal.

After a bighorn has been hit, hover between 75 and 100 yards away from the sheep to allow the animal to choose a place to lie down. Locate an area where the helicopter can be landed during this waiting period. Staying too close to a desert bighorn after it has been injected can force the animal into extremely rough terrain, this can result in injury or death to the sheep when it becomes immobilized. A bighorn in New Mexico fell from a cliff and died after it became imob- ilized.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS When a bighorn begins to show signs of ataxia, locate a landing area for the helicopter. When the sheep becomes recumbant or appears narcotized, land the helicopter and get to the animal as quickly as possible.

9. Drugged bighorns should be approached on foot from the direction most hazardous to the sheep in the event the animal should try to move. Carry a lariet, the capture gun, and a loaded syringe when approaching immobilized sheep. Should the bighorn not be completely immobilized, they generally seek rough and hazardous escape terrain. Animals under the influence of narcotics are susceptible to accidents, and should be approached from the most hazardous area to insure the animal will move in another direction. Because the physiology of each desert bighorn is different, some narcotized sheep remain standing. Under these conditions, the animal will not run any distance, but can remain just out of reach. The lariet will be most useful for final capture when this situation arises. Re-shoot the animal only as a last resort and when it is suspected that only a partial dosage of the drug has been administered and the animal shows signs that the drug is wearing off.

. Once the bighorn is in hand, hold the head in an upright position, immediately blindfold the animal, insure it is in a comfortable position, check' for injuries, and for signs of stress. Holding the head up will insure that the animal will not suffocate from vomit in the air passages. Blindfolding is important and the animal will offer less resistance and is less subject to shock. Insuring that the animal is in a lying position is important to avoid spraining or breaking a leg.

Signs of stress are exhibited by heavy breathing, salivation, the tail curled tightly over the back, nystagomus, and/or a heart rate in excess of 130 beats per minute.

.. Administer 1 m.g. (& of a reversal dose) of M-50-50 and oxygen to bighorns showing signs of severe stress. Do so until the heart rate is below 130 beats . Bighorn showing signs of stress, particularly if the heart rate is above 130 beats per minute, are subject to shock and can die within a few minutes. Administer 1 m.g. of M-50-50 intravenously for emergency treatment. Provide oxygen, if needed.

!. Move the bighorn as quietly and carefully as possible to the helicopter and retain the blindfold until the sheep is placed in the transportation vehicle. Any loud noises such as shouting or harrassment, should be avoided to reduce stress.

If bighorns are captured in fairly gentle terrain, the sheep can be carried by hand or on a canvas stretcher. Sheep captured in rough terrain should be administered of the reversal dose of M-50-50, and led to the helicopter.

)ESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS For moving immobilized sheep, 3 people are needed for ewes (1 to carry the equipment and 2 to handle the sheep). A minimum of 4 people are needed to move mature rams, because of their size and difficulty in handling them.

13. -Transport- captured bighorn in a metal stretcher or shallow box attached to the skid pipesof the helicopter on the passenger side, or in crates of heavy construction which can be pi beneath the helicopter. Carrying a bighorn- in a metal stretcher ox shallow box attached to the skid pipes of the helicopter is the best method of transporting them to the transportation vehicle, as the passenger can hold the head in an upright position by the horns. Watch the animal and keep the blindfold secure. Rubber stretch cords attached to the stretcher or box are especially useful in securing the sheep for the return fligt.

If the sheep is to be placed in a crate for the return flight to the transportation vehicle, have the crate in place and ready to be moved to the transportation vehicle area as soon as the animal is loaded. Place the bighorn in the crate head first and secure the lids before the helicopter arrives.

Crates (4-foot long x 22-24 inches wide, and 3-foot high) should be constructed of wood. Ropes should support the front and rear of the crate 3 feet below the helicopter. Slotted crates are recommended. They create less air resistance in flight than do crates with solid sides. Slotted crates also rotate and pivot less under the helicopter while in flight.

14. At the transportation vehicle, check the bighorns for injuries, tag them on the upper edge of the ear, administer a cornbiotic and the M-50-50 reversal drug (twice the M-99 dosage), and remove the blindfold. Always check for injuries before the reversal drug is given and treat any cuts or abrasions. Gentian violet is a good antiseptic. Minor bone breaks will generally repair themselves, as treatment could do more harm than good. If major bones are broken, there is little chance the animal will survive.

Tagging is necessary for future identification of individuals. The Aluminum Tamp-R-Pruf seal (Salt Lake Stamp Co.) special sheep tag size has proven satis- - factory (Day, 1972).

Cornbiotic injections help to guard against infections and help reduce shipping fever, although 0. c. nelsoni and 2. 5. mexicana have been transported with no ill effects withkt-combiotics. Nevertheless, every precaution should be taken to keep the captured bighorns in the best condition possible. Cwbiotics are believed to help deter infectious respiratory problems. Cornbiotic is a common term for a combination of penicillin and streptomycin, antibiotic drugs.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS After the reversal drug has been administered, bighorns should be watched closely for a minimum of 2 hours. Keep the bighorn's head in an upright position, and the animal lying on its brisket during recovery. Normally a bighorn will rise 5 to 15 minutes after M-50-50 has been administered, but usually for only a few minutes. It then may lie back down for 10 to 15 minutes. Some bighorns have flipped onto their backs in trying to rise, and it is imperative that someone be present to immediately get the animal in an upright position. Once the animal begins to butt and paw, .place it with the other captured animals.

A truck or trailer with 2 compartments, 1 in front of the other, is best, particularly when bighorns have been captured with a capture gun. Bighorns recovering from M-99 can be handled easily in the rear compartment, without disturbing animals that have recovered. Once an- animal has recovered, it can be moved easily to the forward compartment and placed with the other sheep. Using 2 compartments means less handling of the bighorns and reduces stress. rransportation Vehicle and Travel to Release Site Considerations

4oving bighorns from the capture area to the release area is an important factor. ?allowing the presented recommendations will reduce the possibilities of captured 3ighorns being injured or killed while being transported.

Bighorn which can be transported from the capture site to the release site in less than 2 hours can be moved in padded crates. Padded crates (see number 13) are recommended. Nevertheless, regardless of the time involved in transporting bighorn, the following recommendations should be considered.

Transporting vehicles should afford ample room for the sheep to lie down in comfort. The vehicle should be well-ventilated, have padded sides, and rendered as dark as possible when air temperatures are between 30 and 85°F. Bighorns usually lie down when being transported. Therefore, it is important that there is ample room for all of the bighorns to prevent trampling and to reduce stress.

- The vehicle should be well ventilated, and the inside should be padded. All holes, corners, cracks, exposed nuts and bolts, or any opening in which a bighorn can catch a horn or foot should be covered. Old camp cot pads serve well for padding material. Installing a tarp or nylon mesh net to a height of 3.5 feet above the floor of the vehicle will deter bighorn from jumping.

The vehicle should be rendered as dark as possible, otherwise the sheep will jump and butt the sides of the panels and become subject to injuries, trampling, and shock.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS The only exception of this consideration is during the periods of extreme heat, air temperatures over 85'~. , when the panels of the vehicle will have to be slotted to increase air circulation. During periods of air temperatures below 32'~., a heating unit may have to be installed in the vehicle.

3. Large rams should be separated from ewes and lambs by a railing or slotted panel. Generally, large rams are more excitable and more prone to butting. They are more apt to fight an enclosure when isolated from other bighorn. If placed in the same holding pen with ewes and lambs, they may injure the smaller animals. Keeping large rams separated from ewes and lambs, yet designing panels so the rams can see the other bighorns, will help overcome these adverse factors.

4. Bedding of good quality, clean prairie or timothy hay distributed approximately 12 to 15 inches deep on the floor of the transportation vehicle is recommended. Prairie or timothy hay is usually fairly dust free as compared to alfalfa. This is an important consideration when animals are to be heldor moved for more than a day, or when air is circulated by vented slots into the vehicle. Prairie hay and timothy hay are excellent bighorn food. Sheep are more content if they can lie down and feed.

Sheep captured with M-99 have an uncontrollable urge to eat, and bedding material which afford nourishment will reduce the chances of the sheep eating tarps, netting, padding materials, or something which may be harmful to them. They also will be less prone to grinding their teeth.

5. Bighorns held in a transportation vehicle longer than 48 hours should be fed and watered. Desert bighorns released within 48 hours after capture and not fed or watered displayed no adverse effects. This does not mean that bighorn held less than 48 hours should not be fed and watered. This depends upon the judgement of the personnel involved in the transportation operation, and the disposition of th sheep. The more the bighorn is disturbed, the greater the stress, and the greate are the chances for injuries occurring. If bighorn are watered inside the transportation vehicle, the watering vessel should be wired in place in such a positio that slopping water will not soak bedding material.

6. When travelingm the capture site to the release site, stop and check the bighorns every hour. Checking the sheep every hour will insure against hazards which might injure the animals. As bighorn normally remain lying down while being moved, stopping every hour will give-the sheep the chance to stand, stretch and void. This will result in more contented bighorns, although they are under a great deal of stress.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS lelease of Bighorns from the Transportation Vehicle

Che release of bighorns from transportation vehicles is an area deserving additional itudy. In many cases, bighorns have been injured or killed in this phase of re- htroduction programs.

.. Only thme personnel needed to release captured bighorns should be present. This is one of the critical phases of the capture and transplanting operation, yet one of the easiest to overlook. In most cases, bighorns being released are wild animals and not accustomed to humans, noises, and wire fences. The sheep have been moved to a totally unfamiliar habitat. They are frightened and may run into fences upon release. Undue noise and harrassment has probably been the most common factor insofar as bighorns breaking legs and necks when released.

Usually, the agency(s) responsible for the transplanting operation wants photographs of the sheep being released. In such cases, only 1 qualified photographer should be present. He can circulate photographs to the news media and others.

. Bighorns to be released in enclosures should first be released in a small padded paddock. If at all possible, the sheep should be allowed to leave the vehicle at their leisure. This is an important consideration, because it will give the sheep the opportunity to become accustomed to fences with which they probably have never been confronted. Allowing the sheep to leave slowly will reduce the chances of them falling from the vehicle, or charging into a fence and being injured.

. Large mature rams should be kept separate from ewes and lambs during the paddock adjustment period, but paddocks should be constructed so that the rams can see the ewes. This is recommended for the same reasons stated in number 3 of the Transportation Vehicle and Travel to Release Site Considerations section. In New Mexico, a 2-year-old ram died of a broken neck when released into a padded paddock containing 5 ewes. Thus, this precaution will not completely protect sheep. Another adult ram was captured and released into the paddock. He killed one of the ewes while trying to escape. The ram and 4 ewes were released into a 640-acre enclosure the next day. The ram and 2 ewes were found dead within a week. -

. Bighorns that have been captured with M-99 should be checked frequently for the first 3 days following release. Bighorns captured with M-99 may display signs of drowsiness for 2 or 3 days after being captured. During this period, they are more subject to illness and accidents, and may be approached within 25 to 30 yards without spooking. The sheep should be closely observed for signs of injuries or sickness.

. Bighorns in good condition should not be given antibiotics, other than those previously mentioned, prior to release from the transportation vehicle -- unless

ESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS a disease is suspected in the re-introduction area. In Texas, bighorn are always innoculated against blue tongue. Blue tongue is a disease known to be present in that area,but has not been found in other areas of the Southwest inhabited by wild bighorn populations.

LITERATURE CITED

~uechner,Helmut K. 1960. The bighorn sheep in the United States, its past, present and future. Wildl. Mono. No. 4. 174 pp.

Day, Jerry I. 1969. Capture problems and remedies. Wildl. Digest. Res. Abst. #2. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 4 pp.

Drug use for capturing and restraining animals. Wildl. Digest. ~es.Abst. #4. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. 8 pp.

. 1971. Remote injection of drugs. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. W-7815 final report. pp. 5-25.

. 1973. Markers for big game animals. Wildl. Digest. Arizona Game and Fish Dept. In Press.

Geist, Valerius. 1971. Mountain Sheep, A study in Behavior and Evolution. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago and London. 383 pp.

Hailey, Tmy L. 1962. Status progress report from Texas. Desert Bighorn Council 1962 Trans. pp. 129-131.

. 1964. Status of transplanted bighorn in Texas. Desert Bighorn Council 1964 Trans. pp. 113-116.

Tsukamoto, George, Nick Papez and Fred E. Wright. 1970. Trapping and re-distribution of desert bighorn sheep. Study progress report. Nevada Dept. of Fish - and Game. 26 pp.

Welles, Ralph E., and Florence B. 1961. The Bighorn of Death Valley. Fauna of the National Parks of the United States. Fauna Series No. 6. 242 pp.

-. .. . - . - .. . Wilson, Lanny 0. 1968. Distribution and ecology of the desert bighorn sheep in southwestern Utah. Pub. 68-5. Utah Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. Fish and Game. 220 pp.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS BIGHORN SHEEP CAPTURE TECHNIQUES

Bill Montoya New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 413 N. Virginia Roswell, New Mexico 88201

4bstract. Bighorn sheep capture techniques developed or utilized by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish are discussed. Equipment, including drugs and drug dosages, capture guns and helicopters, is discussed in same detail. Instructions 3n the care and handling of captured sheep, and recommendations for bighorn capture ?rograms also are presented.

rhis is a summary of bighorn sheep capture techniques used in New Mexico. Its great- =st contribution, I hope, will be the outlining of both those techniques which were successful, as well as those which should be avoided in capturing bighorns. The use 3f recommended techniques will simplify the capture of bighorn sheep.

Important considerations involved prior to attempting to capture sheep for prop- 3gation include: First, choose a capture technique which will meet the objectives ~f the trapping program. For example, if the trapped sheep are to be released as 3 group into the wild, then a capture method which will take a family group should De used; otherwise, the animals will disperse when released. However, if the captured animals are to be confined to a paddock, the use of a helicopter and drugs should be :onsidered. Confined groups usually will band together within 6 months in confinement.

Second, the selection of a capture technique may depend upon its certainty to take - sheep. If sheep must be taken in a short time span, the use of drugs is probably ~est. The remoteness of a desirable trapping site from a road may preclude the use 2f traps, in which case the helicopter may be the best alternative.

Sheep are usually trap wary; therefore, site location is important and should be $ven.full consideration. For bait, select a habitat item that is in short supply and highly accepted or required by the sheep herd. This may be water, salt, or a Eood item, depending entirely upon the characteristics of the sheep habitat.

IESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Other proven sheep trapping techniques which have not been used in New Mexico include: The use of a drop net which can be activated electronically from a distance of several hundred yards. This technique, using apple mash (an apple cider by-product with a light alcohol content) as bait, has been used successfully in Colorado to capture 75 bighorns. Only 4 of these were lost. However, the use of traps is satisfactory during cool seasons, but unsatisfactory during hot. Trap- ping should be discontinued when temperatures exceed 72'~, as the sheep then tend to overheat when handled.

Guidelines for capturing and re-establishing desert bighorns also have been presented by Wilson et. al. previously in these Tra.nsactions.

USE OF IMMOBILIZING M-99

Numerous drugs suitable for capturing bighorn sheep are available. Immobilization techniques and drugs are continually being improved, and the literature must be constantly reviewed to keep abreast of the field. The most comprehensive work on bighorn immobilization at present is H. Stevan ~ogsdon's1969 dissertation, "Use of Drugs as a Capture Technique for Desert Bighorn Sheep" (Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins).

M-99 is the only drug which has been used to immobilize bighorns in New Mexico. Drug dosages and reaction times for sheep captured with M-99 thus far in New Mexico are presented in Table 1.

Ataxia begins between 7 and 13 minutes after administration of the drug. If a drug reaction is not evident within 15 minutes of dart impact, then capture is unlikely and the animal should be redarted. Bighorns have a wide tolerance to M-99 and, in the event of an overdose, an antidote can be easily administered to reverse the effects of stress. Therefore, if the sheep does not respond satisfactorily to 1 darting, redarting should be routine.

The sheep's physical response to M-99 imobilization is that of a frightened animal. Distress signs exhibited include rapid breathing, salivation, inverted tail curl, - and rapid heart rate. Usually a reversal dosage of M-50-50 will overcome all distress symptoms, except a rapid heart rate. I£ the heart rate exceeds 130 beats per minute, oxygen should be administered. To reduce a rapid heart rate, a sympton of overexertion, oxygen should be given until the heart rate is less than 130 beats per minute. In all captures observed by the author, the sheep appeared-to relax and stress was no longer evident when the heart rate was lowered to 130 beats per minute.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Table 1. Use of M-99 to capture bighorn sheep in New Mexico.

APPX* Drugs Minutes to Date Sex Wt. Lbs. Name Mg. Name %b Down Recovery

Azaperine

I I None - -

Above 3:30 12:OO reshot

115

adult escaped

160 8:OO - -

175 13:OO 45 - 60

175 7: 15 120

USING A HELICOPTER TO IMMOBILIZE BIGHORNS

Darting bighorn sheep from a helicopter is dangerous work. Sheep usually are captured in New Mexico at elevations between 6,000 and 11,000 feet, in rugged terrain, close to ground level, and at maximum engine stress for long intervals while observing and herding sheep. For these reasons, pilot experience and proper equipment should be given high priorities.

4 helicopter equivalent to the B-series Bell with a minimum of 260 horsepower should be used. A partial gas load and only 1 passenger should be allowed on capture flights. hdditional personnel, as needed to handle immobilized sheep, should -be carried to the capture site after a sheep is down. If the terrain necessitates a long flight, 1 passenger may be unloaded in a spot conveniently close to the expected capture. gorkers should wear flourescent orange vests so that they can be easily spotted from the air. This will save flight time.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Pilot experience is the most important item in a sheep immobilization effort by helicopter. The effective herding of sheep with a helicopter is acquired through experience. At least 3 hours flying time should be alloted for an inexperienced pilot to become proficient.

Sheep trapping operations should cease automatically when wind velocities exceed 15 knots. At this point the operation becomes dangerous, imposes severe strain on personnel, and adversely affects their next day's performance. Crew efficiency should be an important consideration in determining if the operation should proceed in inclement weather. Proceed only if it is absolutely necessary.

POSITIONING SHEEP FOR DARTING .

Immobilizing sheep from a helicopter requires skill. The most common error is that of shooting before the correct opportunity is presented. Darting first should be attempted after the sheep is driven onto level ground or into the foothills adjacent to a mountain range. If approaches and maneuvers are made correctly, bighorns easily can be moved into a desired area. An exception is that an extremely tired sheep cannot be hazed with a helicopter. It simply walks slowly into an area of cover or up to a large rock and will remain in this position regardless of how the helicopter is maneuvered. A sheep reacting in this manner is usually left and another selected.

Darting should be attempted only when a sheep turns broadside to the chopper and stands less than 25 yards distant. Since the flushing distance for sheep, even when tired, appears to be approximately 25 yards, patience is the key to success. The correct position for a shot is from about 20 yards and from a height of less than 15 yards. The higher the chopper, the higher the dart will impact on the sheep.

M-99's effectiveness is little affected by the dart's impact on the sheep. Except for 1 sheep which was darted in the flank, successful immobilization has resulted from all impact areas. This animal showed no symptoms of the drug, even though a complete dosage was administered by the dart. In this case, we waited approximately 15 minutes, then redarted the animal for a successful capture. Perhaps the dart penetrated completely through the flank and the drug was discharged outside of the animal.

GUN PREFERENCE

The C02 rifle has been used exclusively for helicopter immobilization work in New Mexico. We believe it is superior to other capture equipment available today. The trajectory is sufficient to get a dart to the animal, but the impact speed is not SO

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS ;reat as to penetrate the dart barrel into the body. There is little or no :ffect from rotor wash on the dart trajectory. If the powder gun is used, only .ow velocity charges should be considered.

HANDLE AND CARE OF IMMOBILIZED SHEEP

:he care and handling of bighorns from the time of darting until recovery is the aesponsibility of the field team. Good judgment should be exercised to prevent .xposing the animals to unnecessary dangers. After dart impact, the bighorn is ulnerable to physical dangers, such as falls, abrasions, and stress. These dangers ncrease when the animal attempts to escape in an unstable state of equilibrium. .wareness of developing dangerous situations will dictate the preventive procedures o follow. Adequate equipment and caution will prevent most mishaps during capture nd recuperation of animals.

fter a bighorn has been darted, hover above the animal at a distance of 75 to 100 ards and let it move freely, unless it attempts to enter rugged terrain. If an nimal attempts to enter extremely rugged terrain, it should be hazed into a more esirable area. Using these procedures, we have lost only 1 sheep from a fall.

heep drugged with M-99 normally drop onto the brisket and remain lying in their ormal resting position. This position, fortunately, prevents the sheep from olling down sloping areas.

'hen an animal begins to show ataxia, select a convenient landing spot and another ite where a transport crate can be land-ed to pick-up the animal. As soon as the nimal goes down, move to the chosen site, dismount from the chopper and go directly o the animal. Move in from the side which is most dangerous to the animal, to revent it from trying to escape in that direction.

hen you reach the animal, hold the horns and check for signs of injuries or distress. lace a rope on the animal to restrain it. Administer a $+- reversal dosage of -50-50 and oxygen, if the heart rate exceeds 130 beats per minute. Oxygen therapy hould be continued until the heart rate is slowed to 130 beats per minute. Oxygen s given through 1 nostril, while the other is held closed.

ithin 30 minutes after administration of M-50-50, ewes normally can be led from the mmobilization site to the crate. At least 3 people should be present when moving ewe.. Two people lead the sheep and the third brings the equipment. Four men re needed to handle a ram, especially in rough terrain. Sheep in a docile state an be walked more than 0.5 miles to a crate.

ESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS RECUPERATION

When crated sheep have reached the base of operations, remove them to a holding compartment for recuperation. Inject the remainder of the reversal dosage and a long-lasting broad spectrum antibiotic. Watch the animals carefully for at least 30 minutes. Support the sheep on the brisket, with the head held upright, until they are able to hold their heads upright by themselves. A sheep normally will stand within 5 to 15 minutes following the final injection of M-50-50. They will stand for ,1 to 2 minutes on the first attempt, then lie down for approximately 10 minutes. Following this initi.al effort, the animals.wil1 get to their feet once or twice during the next half hour. During the second and third attempts to stand, sheep often turn onto their backs and are unable to straighten themselves. There- fore, recuperating animals should be held in separate compartments where they can be tended without exciting previously captured animals.

If sheep are to be held more than a day, offer them water and good quality timothy hay the second night. Do not feed or water sheep if the holding'time is less than 2 days. Studies have shown that sheep suffer no ill effects from thirst for at least 5 days.

Expect drowsiness in immobilized sheep for up to 3 days following immobilization. They should be checked daily for at least 3 days following release into a paddock or pasture. During this period they can be observed with little disturbance, unless approached closer than 25 yards.

HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS

Sheep handled thus far have been extremely calm. This is especially true when 2 or more animals are confined in a holding compartment. Our only problem with sheep attempting to escape has been with a mature ram after being held approximately 8 hours. Sheep usually stand quietly and accept activity around the trailer with little or no apparent concern.

Off-loading of wild sheep from the trailer into a paddock is a critical step. - At Red Rock, released sheep have not hit the paddock fence, which is camouflaged with wide belting. Although belting is not a complete safeguard, I feel it is essential to prevent injuries in a small pen. If belting is not available, sheep-. . should be.released into the largest pen available.

EQUIPMENT

The use of proper equipment is essential to the safety and comfort of captured bighorns. Sheep crates should be approximately 4 feet long x 24 inches wide

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS K 3 feet high. A rope siing shouid be inserted through the front and rear sides of the crate, The sling should support the crate approximately 3 feet below the chopper, but no more than 4. A solid sliding door in 1 end has proven quite satisfactory. The crate also should have slatted sides. A solid crate tends to rotate and swing during flight, thus acting as a pendulum under the aircraft.

4 trailer used for transporting sheep should be roomy, with solid paneling to the floor. A net should be suspended about 3.5 feet from the floor. Cover the floor with from 6 to 12 inches of loose straw for bedding. The trailer used by the New !fexico Department of Game and Fish has 2 compartments; 1 is used as a holding compartment, while the second.is for recovery of new arrivals.

TRAPPING

3nly Rocky Mountain bighorn (Ovis canadensis canadensis) from the Sandia Mountains lave been successfully trapped in New Mexico. The trap site was a well-used salt lick at Quanset Point. Corner post holes were drilled, and the trap consisted of let sides, with an entrance drop gate. Table 2 gives the disposition of 38 sheep trapped at this site.

Cable 2. Sheep captured at the Sandia Mountains trap site in New Mexico.

fear Male Females Young Total Disposition

1964 - - 8 8 16 Transplant at Glenwood

1965 2 - - - - 2 Transplant at Glenwood

1965 - - 6 3 9 Marked and released

1965 2 - - - - 2 Marked and released 1966 - - 6 3 9 Transplant at Pecos

Cn 1968, the trap was moved to the San Andres Mountains to trap desert sheep (0.- 2. nexicana). The trap site was at a commonly used salt lick on Goat Mountain. The trap was set from 11/1/68 through 10/31/69. However, although sheep visited the site,

3ESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS they would not enter the trap. Sheep laid against the trap or came to the entrance to look at the salt lick on numerous occasions. In an effort to make the trap appear less restrictive, an additional gate was built so that both ends were open. Even with this modification, sheep would not enter the trap. Therefore, it was removed on 10/31/69.

NEW MEXICO'S RED ROCK SHEEP PROPAGATION PROJECT

Most desert bighorn sheep propagation projects in the western United States initially have suffered setbacks.. The New Mexico project also has had its share of successes and failures. The original capture of 5 ewes in Mexico in January 1972 was without incident. These sheep were off-loaded at the Red Rock Wildlife Area in a small paddock to await construction of a larger enclosure. Within a month, 5 lambs were born. Of these, 3 males and a female were successfully hand-reared at the facility by Mr. and Mrs. George Hightower.

The next addition to the group was a 2-year-old ram taken from the San Andres Wildlife Refuge during the summer of 1972 and placed with the Mexican ewes. This ram later broke its neck in the paddock during a severe thunderstorm.

Construction of a one-section pasture and adjacent paddock was completed in August 1972, and the 5 Mexican ewes were moved into the paddock to acquaint them with water and feed facilities. Two mature rams were taken in August (during the rut) from the San Andres Wildlife Refuge. The larger ram (a 7-year-old) was placed with the ewes and the other ram (a 6-year-old) was placed in the original paddock.

The ram placed with the ewes apparently battered himself and several ewes in his attempts to escape. One ewe died from injuries inflicted by the ram. The remaining 4 ewes and ram were released into the pasture to prevent further injuries. The following week, 2 of the 4 ewes were found dead. The ram also died about 5 weeks later. Although not substantiated, I feel the death of the 3 ewes was caused by the ram. The carcasses of the ewes and the ram had deteriorated before they were found. -

The second ram placed in the holding paddock became infected with screw worms in his foot. This was cured, but the ram died several weeks later in the large pasture into which he was released.

A supplemental group of 5 ewes was taken from the San Andres Wildlife Refuge and added to the group in late 1972. As of July 1972, the following sheep were at the Red Rock Wildlife Area sheep pasture:

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS 2 - Mexican Ewes 5 - San Andres Ewes 1 - Yearling Female Mexican Ewe 3 - Yearling Male Mexican Rams 2 - Lambs 13 - TOTAL luring late June 1973, sheep in the pasture totaled 9. One lamb is known lead, but the disposition of the remaining sheep is not known. Apparently, ~aterwas supplied but in adjacent paddocks, not in the pasture, and the sheep rould not go to this water,source. Therefore, it is suggested that water should ,e placed within the sheep pasture where animals have access to it during the dry leason (April - August).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Use 2.2 mg. of M-99 to capture bighorn ewes. Use 2.5 mg. of M-99 to capture rams. Use 20 mg. of Azaperine or an equivalent tranquilizer in immobilization when M-99 is used. Remain in constant control of sheep for 2 hours after the final reversal of the immobilization drug is administered. Use 0.75-inch barbed needles on darts. Release sheep into pens with belting on the sides or into a large pasture. Do not place wild rams caught during rut with ewes in small enclosures. Capture young rams for breeding rams. Capture family groups for wild releases. Place individuals taken from several groups in holding pens for an acquaintance period of 1 year prior to releasing them as a group into wild. Maintain a water source in the sheep pasture during the months of April through July.

ESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS HAND-RAISING OF DESERT BIGHORN LAMBS

' Verna Hightower Gerald Gates New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

Abstract. Methods, including formulas, feeds and equipment, used to hand-rear 4 desert bighorn lambs at the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish facility at Red Rock are presented.

Five desert bighorn ewes were brought to the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish facility at Red Rock on January 26, 1972. The first lamb was born 2 days later. Although the lamb appeared to be in good condition during the afternoon, it died during its first night. It was then decided that lambs born to the remaining ewes would be hand-raised. As a result, the senior author reared 4 desert bighorn lambs during 1972. This paper summarizes lambing dates, formulas, methods, and equipment used to successfully rear these lambs.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Table 1 summarizes the dates and time of birth for 5 desert bighorn lambs born in captivity at Red Rock, New Mexico.

Table 1. Lambing dates and time of birth for 5 lambs born at Red Rock, New Mexico.

Lamb Date Time Sex -

- - January 28, 1972 7 A.M. Male, died

Bonita February 1, 1972 2 P.M. Female

Roberto March 1, 1972 2 P.M. Male

Poncho March 17, 1972 5 P.M. Male

Felipe March 18, 1972 5 P.M. Male Table 2 presents the formula contents and the feeding schedules used to rear 4 desert bighorn lambs.

Table 2. Formulas and feeding schedules used to rear 4 desert bighorn lambs1.

Condensed Milk Water Interval Times

2 0 to 14 days of age 2 oz. 4 oz. 2 hrs. 6 A.M., 8 A.M., 10 A.M. ti1 10 P.M. 15 to 29 days of age 3 oz. 6 02. 4 hrs. 6 A.M., 10 A.M., 2 P.M., 6 P.M. 29 to 43 days of age 4 02. 8 oz.. 4 hrs. 6 A.M., 10 A.M., 2 P.M., 6 P.M. 44 to 58 days of age 6 02. 10 oz. 6 hrs. 6 A.M. - 12 noon 6 P.M. - 'weaned in November, 1972. 2k teaspoon rumen activator, 1st and last daily bottle, for 3 days. Scours. Feed 1 tablespoon of kaopectate in a bottle twice a day until the stool returns to normal. This usually occurs within 2 days. Use Kaopectate (Upjohn: Kaulin 90 grams and pectin 2 grams per fluid ounce).

Bowel Movements. Wash the anus with a warm damp washcloth at each feeding for 3 to 4 days. This stimulates the lamb to defecate at each feeding. -Taking Lambs From Ewes. When the 4 lambs were taken from their mothers, 2 ewes snorted and pawed the ground. Two ewes also protected their lambs and intimidation was required in order to obtain their lambs.

Feeding of Dried Feed. The 2 earliest born lambs had no trouble during their first - 6 months. From the second week on they were given free access to rolled oats and rolled mi10,which were mixed in equal portions. They also were kept on a dry Bermuda grass lawn and grazed during the day. When the grass greened up, following the July rains, the 2 younger lambs scoured. The 2 older lambs did not scour, although all 4 grazed together. All lambs picked up sticks or other objects in the yard and chewed on these. They were given singed prickley pear leaves free choice; following this, the lambs quit scouring and chewing on debris in the yard.

Care of Equipment. Sterilization of all bottles, nipples, and equipment after feeding is of primary importance. Sanitation should be given upmost attention in handling all equipment which comes into contact with the lambs.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Care of Single Lambs. A single lamb demands company. They should be given a companion, such as a dog, cat, large toy or allowed to sleep on +L.-LUG 1----,.w9eEb55p~~ s L-Auru at night. They should not be left unattended where they can reach a window or other dangerous area, as they actively attempt to follow. They appear to need an object with which to lay in contact when sleeping. With the arrival of the second lamb, the 2 were perfectly happy to bed together and to accompany each

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS SEMEN COLLECTION, FREEZING AND A RTI F I C I A L INSEMINATION IN WILD SHEEP: A PRELIMINARY REPORT

Jarren C. Foote lepartment of Animal Science Jtah State University Logan 84322

Cdward F. Graham Iepartment of Animal Science Jniversity of Minnesota jt. Paul 55414

~bstract. Methods and procedures for collecting, freezing for storage, and .nsemination of semen from wild sheep are presented. Advantages and utiliz- [tion of techniques, and results of research conducted at Utah State University Ire discussed.

~esearchwith artificial insemination dates back to at least the last quarter of the .8th century when Spalanzani conducted experiments with frogs. Since then, and larticularly in the last 30 years, the science of collection, deep freezing for 'torage, and insemination of semen has come to have great application in "routine" ~anagementprograms in domestic cattle, and now is being extended to many other iamrnalian species, including sheep, goats, horses and swine, as well as some .vian species. Semen from several species, when properly extended, can be deep rozen and stored for indefinite periods of time, but known to exceed 20 years, lithout any appreciable loss in fertilizing capacity.

n the area of wildlife management, the need for methods of maintaining and prop- gating threatened or endangered animal species is becoming more and more critical. 'his is particularly important with species, such as wild sheep, which are difficult o maintain in captivity. One contributing method is semen collection, extending nd freezing for use in artificial insemination. The successful use of this tech- ique would provide for the production of a semen bank from rams captured in the .ild, for any reason, as well as for a regular collection schedule from rams held n captivity. Semen also could be collected from the epididymis of rams immed- ately following death.

SSERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS Obvious advantages would be: (1) to extend the influence of a single ram or of a species in regard to the number of ewes bred and also to provide for use of semen after the death of the ram, (2) to provide for insemination of ewes in areas or'at times when rams would not be available for natural mating, (3) to facilitate hybridization between wild species for experimental purposes, (4) to facilitate other experimental work such as ova transfer, and (5) to produce a semen bank to assure inseminations in case of death of the ram.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Equipment used for semen collection was standard electroejaculation equipment, and procedures were those used with domestic rams. The equipment and procedures used for extending and freezing involved a slight modification of the buffers reported by Graham et. al. (1972). Semen was pelleted according to the technique of Nagase and Graham (1964) and Nagese et. al. (1964). And the semen quality analysis developed by Graham et. al. (1970) was used. Equipment used for artificial insemination was that which was commercially available. Two Rocky Mountain bighorns and 2 Stone rams were used. Rams were physically restrained on their side and the sheatl cleaned to protect against contamination of semen. The electrode from the electro- ejaculator was inserted into the rectum and electrical current administered rythm- ically at approximately 2-second intervals. The initial amperage was 2.5, raised in a step-wise fashion to a maximum of 7.5 amperes, to obtain the desired effect. The semen was collected in a sterile insulated cylinder or tube. Attempts were made to produce an erection to facilitate ejaculation. This was not routinely achieved, although semen samples were obtained. The semen was then evaluated under the microscope, diluted (extended), equilibrated, and frozen to a -190'~. This consisted of diluting the semen to approximately 1:14 in specially prepared extender: reducing the temperature of the semen on a timed basis to 5-10'~. , freezing into pellets on dry ice (-7g°C.) and finally reducing the temperature to -190'~. for storage by placing in liquid nitrogen. Thawing of semen prior to insemination was done at 38-40'~. The research was conducted during January and February, 1973.

Semen samples of approximately 1.0-1.5 ml were obtained from the Rocky Mountain bighorns with good concentration, low percent abnormality, and 50-70% motile sperm - Semen was removed from the epididymis of the Stone rams following death, as a result of respiratory failure due to pneumonia and other complicating secondary infections. Approximately 0.75 ml were obtained in this manner. Percent motile sperm was somewhat reduced in the epididymal samples, but ranged from 40 to 60%, with a low inci- dence of.abnorma1 sperm. Semen thawed immediately after freezing and at time of insemination had from 30 to 60% motile sperm.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTICINS rhe semen was collected from animals on a private game farm in California. After Ereezing, the semen was transported to Utah State University and stored. douflon ewes were checked for estrus, using a painted, sterile teaser ram (Mouflon- lomestic cross). Estrus was checked twice daily. Ewes were inseminated 2-3 hours 3fter first being observed in estrus. Approximately 0.25 ml of semen (3-4 pellets) vas drawn into a French straw, immediately following thawing, and deposited in the ~osterioropening of the cervis (0s cervix) from the straw held in an insemination 3yringe. The cervix was located by use of a speculum and light. There was no indication of any harm to either rams or ewes from the procedures imposed.

'ositive determination of conception rate was not possible, due to marking problems 3nd possible onset of anestrus. Preliminary records.show 2 of 4 ewes inseminated aith semen from Rocky Mountain bighorns and 1 of 3 ewes inseminated with semen from Stone sheep conceived.

4uch of this work was carried out under field conditions. All equipment and pro- zedures are adapted for full-field research. rhese preliminary results indicate that semen collection, extending and storage, and artificial insemination can be used in wild sheep programs. The final results ~f this study will not be known until a period of time is allowed for completion ~f gestation.

Cmprovement of results can be expected from more experience in the total procedure in adaptation to wild sheep, particularly in regard to handling and observing animals.

LITERATURE CITED

:raham, E.F., B.G. Crabo, and K.I. Brown. 1972. Effect of some Zwitter Ion buffers on the freezing and storage of spermatozoa 1. Bull. J. Dairy Sci. 55:(3)372-378.

(agase, H, and E.F. Graham. 1964. Pelleted semen: comparison of different extenders and processes on fertility of bovine spermatozoa. VO Congresso Internazionale Per La Riproduzione Animale E. La Fecondazione Artificiale. Sezione 111-34: 388-391. hgase, H., E.F. Graham, and T. Niwa. 1964. Pelleted semen: the effect of gly- cerol level and composition of thawing solution on fertility of bovine spermatozoa. V' Congresso Internazionale Per La Riproduzione Animale E. La Fecon- dazione Artificiale. Sezione 111-37:404-409.

Sraham, E.F., M.K.L. Schmehl, and M. Maki-Laurila. 1970. Some physical and chem- ical methods of evaluating semen. Proc. 3rd Tech. Conf. Anim. Reprod. and Artificial Insemination, Nat. Assn. of Animal Breeders. pp. 1-6.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS ATTENDANCE ROSTER DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL MEETING

-Name Agency Location

Adams , Alfred Calif. F.& G. Sacramento, California Aldous, Clair USFWS Fallon, Nevada Anderson, Morris Calif. F.& G. June Lake, California Baxter, Garth USFS Ely, Nevada Becks trand, Kraig Nev. F. & G. Hawthorne, Nevada Blaisdell, Jim NPS Klamath Falls, Oregon Blaisdell, Bonnie Klamath Falls, Oregon Blong, Bonnar Calif. F. & G. Idyllwild, California Brechbill, Ray A EC Las Vegas, Nevada Brigham, Rick BLM Phoenix, Arizona Brown, James Q. Long Beach, California Carpenter, Lewis Calif. Wildl. Fed. Fresno, California Carter, Pete BSF 6 W Lakeview, Oregon Clark, Dell Calif. Dept. Food & Ag. Sacramento, California Cleary, Ed Range Soc. Anaheim, California Cons tantion, George Desert ~at'l.W. R. Las Vegas, Nevada Cooper, Jack Nev. F. & G. Ely, Nevada Creasy , James BSF&W Ajo, Arizona Crown, Doug Univ. Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming Day, Jerry Ariz. G. & F. Tucson, Arizona DeForge, Jim Cal. Poly Ontario, California Doell, Dean USFS Elko, Nevada Dunawa y, Dave USFS Bishop, California Duncan, Jerry BSF&W Yuma, Arizona Ferris, Ross BL24 Fairfax, Virginia Gates, Gerald New Mex. G. & F. Santa Fe, New Mexico Gem, Key USFS Sparks, Nevada Gibson, John Okanagan Game Farm British Columbia, Canada Glading, Ben Bend, Oregon Good, Jim BSF&W Plush, Oregon Graf, Bill San Jose State San Jose, California Hailey, Tomy Marfa, Texas Hansen, Charles U. of Nev. Las Vegas, Nevada Hansen, Pat Santa Rosa, California Helvie, Jack Las Vegas, Nevada Jackson, Kent Ariz. G. & F. Kingman, Arizona Jacot, Francis NPS San Francisco, California Jorgensen, Mark Cal. State U. El Cajon, California Jorgensen, Paul Kelly, Warren USFS Placerville, California Kiger, John BSF&W Las Cruces, New Mexico Klebenow, Don Univ. of Nev. Reno, Nevada Kofa Game Range BSF&W Yuma , Arizona Lampi, Es NPS Santa Fe, New Mexico

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS -Name Agency Location

sty, Edward Okanagan Game Farm British Columbia, Canada =e, Ronald Nev. F. & G. Indian springs, Nevada zwis, Mont USFS Ely, Nevada ight, Jerry USF S San Bernardino, California ~gsden,Steve Cal. F. & G. Cons. Bishop, California zclintock, Ralph W. Santa Monica, California ~Intyre,William D. Lancaster, California :Lean, Dave NPS Boulder City, Nevada :Quivly, Bob Nev. F. & G. Tonopah, Nevada shon, Carl BLM Monticello, Utah srtin, Herbert US Humane Society Sacramento, California =rri t t , Peggy . U. of Calif. Lemon Grove, California ionczyski, John Atlantic City, Wyoming ~nson,Gale Desert Museum Tuscon, Arizona Dntoya, Bill N. Mex. G. & F. Roswell, New Mexico aiwert, Ray USFS Austin, Nevada zwgren, D$ck WS Manzanita Lake, California spez, Nick Nev. F. & G. Reno, Nevada 3rry, Pete NPS Twenty-Nine Palms, Calif. =ese, Jerry USFS Moran, Wyoming ~driquez,Joe BSF&W Yuma, Arizona =ring, Jon Aspen, Colorado nith, Dan Cal. F. & G. Fresno, California nyder, Gregory U. of Calif. Riverside, California pillett, Juan Utah State Univ. Logan, Utah tumpf, Alan NPS Boulder City, Nevada sylor, Robert Univ. of Nev. Reno, Nevada hompson, Harold (Tom) NPS Death Valley, California sukomoto, George Nev. F. & G. Reno, Nevada urner, Jack Univ. of Wyo. Laramie, Wyoming alcott, Frank Burbank, California eaver, Richard Calif. F. & G. Loomis, California . eaver, Robert Ariz. G. & F. Yuma, Arizona ilson, Lanny 0. BLM Santa Fe, New Mexico oakum, James BLM Reno, Nevada

ESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1973 TRANSACTIONS DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1972-73

OFFICERS:

Chairman: Warren Kelly, U. S. Forest Service Placerville, California Vice Chairman: Gayle Monson, Sonora Desert Museum Tucson, Arizona Past Chairman: George Welch, Arizona Game and Fish Kingman, Arizona Secretary-Treasurer: Doris A. Weaver . Loomis, California

TECHNICAL STAFF : James A. Blaisdell (Chairman), Charles G. Hansen, Jerry Day, Jack Helvie, Richard Weaver, Warren Kelly, Jose S. Samano (Mexico) , Norman Simmons (Canada)

BOOK EDITORS : Lowell Sumner and Gayle Monson

COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN :

Constitution: Gayle Monson Nominations: Jack Turner Program:. Mayo Call Arrangements: Charles Hansen Transactions: Charles Hansen Publicity: Lanny Wilson Burro: Rick Brigham Ewes : Bonnie Blaisdell and Ruth Kelly Awards: . Jack Helvie Resolutions: Mayo Call Plaque Award: Lydia Berry

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL MEETINGS AND OFFICERS 1957-1973

ANNUAL MEETINGS Year .Location Chairman 1957 Las Vegas , Nevada M, Clair Aldous 1958 Yuma, Arizona Gale Monson & W, Kelly 1959 Death Valley, Calif ornfa M. Clair Aldous Fred Jones 1960 Las Cruces, New Mextco Warren Kelly Fred Jones 1961 Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico John Van den Akker Ralph Welles

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 19 73 TRANSACTIONS