Desert Bighorn Council€¦ · StevenD.Kovach ..... 35 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP HUNTING REGULATIONS AND...

THE DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: ISBN 0-9620159-0-3

PAUL R. KRAUSMAN, Editor, School of Renewable Natural Resources University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

JOHN A. BISSONETTE, Associate Editor, Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Utah State University, Logan UT 84332.

MARK C. WALLACE, Editorial Assistant, School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

The Desert Bighorn Council Transactions is published yearly by the Desert Bighorn Council, 1500 N. Decatur Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89108. Manuscripts for publication, books, and papers for review or special comment should be sent to the Editor as explained in the "Instructions for Contributions to the Desert Bighorn Council Transactions" in the back of this volume.

Illustrations by Pat Hansen. Typesetting and Layout by Typecraft, Tucson, AZ. Printed by Fabe Litho Ltd., Tucson, AZ.

Desert Bighorn Council

Editorial Board: Paul R. Krausman, Editor John A. Bissonette, Associate Editor Mark C. Wallace, Editorial Assistant

for $5.00 by writing the

Desert Bighorn Council 1500 N. Decatur Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89108

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TECHNICAL REPORTS

SOME PROBABILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH SAMPLING FOR DISEASES IN BIGHORN SHEEP JohnD.Wehausen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

DIET OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE VIRGIN MOUNTAINS, ARIZONA David R. Smith and Paul R. Krausman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

DIURNAL SUMMER ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF CAPTIVE DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP Henry E. McCutchen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

PNEUMONIA IN A TRANSPLANTED POPULATION OF BIGHORN SHEEP Andrew V. Sandoval, Amy S. Elenowitz, and James R. DeForge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

STATUS REPORTS and COMMENTS

STATUS OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN ARIZONA, 1986 RaymondM.Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

STATUS OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN COLORADO, 1986 VanK.Graham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

STATUS OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP IN 'NEVADA. 1986 DanielE.Delaney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

STATUS OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN NEW MEXICO, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amy S. Elenowitz and Doug Humphreys 30

STATUS OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN UTAH, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . James G. Guymon and James F. Karpowitz 33

FERAL BURRO REPORT, 1986 StevenD.Kovach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP HUNTING REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING HARVEST QUOTAS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CharlesK.Winkler 37

-2- DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1987 TRANSACTIONS

ARE THE GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS READY FOR BIGHORNS? JimWallters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION IN THE CHALLENGE PROGRAM FOR DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP RitaSuminski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OBITUARIES 43

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RECENT DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP LITERATURE 1984-1987 46

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1987-1988 MEMBERSHIP LIST 48

REVIEWERS Jay A. Alderman Bill Bates Joel Berger Thomas D. Bunch MaryEllen Chilleli Richard Etchberger Charles L. Douglas

FOR THE 1987 Fred S. Guthery Norman R. Henderson Michael M. King Raymond M. Lee Rosemary Mazaika John R. Morgart Phil R. Ogden

TRANSACTIONS Andrew V. Sandoval Joan E. Scott Norman S. Smith Steven G. Torres John D. Wehausen Elizabeth S. Williams

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1987 TRANSACTIONS -3-

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1987-1988

OFFICERS :

Chairman: Vice-chairman: Past Chairman: Secretary-Treasurer:

TECHNICAL STAFF:

COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN:

Jack S. Kilpatrick, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Charles K. Winkler, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Jim Guymon, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Bill Durn, NevadaDepartment of Wildlife

Richard A. Weaver (Chairman), James A. Blaisdell, WilliamR. Brigham, James R. DeForge, Andrew Sandoval, J. Juan Spillett

Nominations: Program: Arrangements: Transactions: Publicity: Burro: Barbary sheep: Awards: Resolutions:

Richard A. Weaver Charles K. W i d e r Jack S. Kilpatrick Paul R. Krausman Jack S . Kilpatrick Steven Kovach Bruce L. Morrison William R. Brigham Vernon C. Bleich


DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL MEETINGS AND OFFICERS 1957 - 1986 ANNUAL MEETINGS

Year Location Chairman Secretary-Treasurer

Las Vegas, Nevada

Yuma, Arizona Death Valley, California Las Cruces, New Mexico

Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico

Grand Canyon, Arizona Las Vegas, Nevada Mexicali, Baja Calif., Mexico

Redlands, California Silver City, New Mexico Kingman, Arizona

Las Vegas, Nevada

Monticello, Utah

Bishop, California

Santa Fe, New Mexico Tucson, Arizona Hawthorne, Nevada- Moab, Utah Indio, California Bahia Kino, Mexico Las Cruces, New Mexico

Kingman, Arizona Boulder City, Nevada

St. George, Utah

Kerrville, Texas Borrego Springs, California Silver City, New Mexico Bullhead City, Arizona Las Vegas, Nevada Page, Arizona Van Horn, Texas

M. Clair Aldous

Gale Monson and Warren Kelly M. Clair Aldous

Warren Kelly

Jon Van Den Akker

James Blaisdell Al Ray Jonez Rudolfo Hernandez Corzo

John D. Goodman

Cecil Kennedy Claud Lard Ray Brechbill

Ralph and Buddy Welles

William Graf

Richard Weaver

George W. Welsh Warren Kelly

Carl Mahon Bonnar Blong Mario Luis Cossio Jerry Gates

Kelly Neal Bob McQuivey

Carl Mahon - Jack Kilpatric

Mark Jorgensen Andrew Sandoval Jim de Vos, Jr. David E. Pulliam, Jr. Jim Guymon Jack S. Kilpatrick

Fred Jones Fred Jones

Ralph Welles

Charles Hansen

Charles Hansen Charles Hansen

John P. Russo

John P. Russo John P. Russo

John P. Russo

W. Glen Bradley

W. Glen Bradley

Tillie Barling Doris Weaver Doris Weaver Lanny Wilson Lanny Wilson Lanny Wilson Peter Sanchez

Peter Sanchez Peter Sanchez

Peter Sanchez

Peter Sanchez

Rick Brigham Rick Brigham Rick Brigham Rick Brigham Bill Dunn Bill Dunn


DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL AWARD RECIPIENTS BIGHORN TROPHY:

Ralph and Florence Welles, US . National Park Service, Death Valley California Oscar V. Deming, US. Bureau Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Lakeview, Oregon John P. Russo, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona Charles Hansen, US. Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Las Vegas, Nevada Steve James, Jr., Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn, Las Vegas, Nevada M. Clair Aldoux, US. Bureau Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Fallon, Nevada The Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Inc. Fauna-Silvestre. Mexico City, Mexico Robert P. McQuivey, Nevada Dept. of Fish and Game, Las Vegas, Nevada Charles L. Douglas, U.S. National Park Service, UNLV, Las Vegas, Nevada David M. Leslie, Jr., Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon George Welsh, Arizona Game and Fish Department Richard Weaver, California Department of Fish and Game

HONOR PLAQUE:

Nevada Operations Office, Atomic Energy Commission, Las Vegas, Nevada Pat Hansen, Bighorn Illustrator Specialist, Death Valley, California lnyo National Forest, Bishop, California Lydia Berry, Clerk-Stenographer, Desert National Wildlife Range, Las Vegas, Nevada Jim Blaisdell, U.S. National Park Service, Seattle, Washington Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep. Upland, California Dr. Thomas D. Bunch, Dept. Animal, Dairy, and Veterinary Science, Utah State Univ., Logan New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish Dr. Grant Kinzer, New Mexico State University Maurice 'Bud' Getty, California State Parks, Sacramento, CA DBC Ewes Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California Warren Kelly, US. Forest Service. Retired

AWARD OF EXCELLENCE:

1975 Gale Monson, Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona Lowell Sumner, Glenwood, New Mexico

1986 Charles L. Douglas, U.S. National Park Service, Univ. Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada.


TECHNICAL PAPERS


RESULTS

SOME PROBABILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH SAMPLING FOR DISEASES IN BIGHORN SHEEP

JOHN D. WEHAUSEN, University of California, White Mountain Research Station, Bishop, CA 93514

Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 31: 8-10.

Abstract: I calculated probabilities for obtaining no positive evidence of disease organism in a population given different sample sizes, population sizes, and proportions of the population that test positive. Widespread sampling of populations to determine distribution of cer- tain disease organisms; i.e., presence or absence in each population, is an impractical goal. Large samples are needed to state with sufficient confidence that the prevalence of a disease organism in any population is 5 10%. Some alternative classifications of disease prevalence in populations are: presence versus undetermined; high versus low, where low includes absence; and results expressed with confidence limits.

Much of the research concerning diseases of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) has been concerned with studying potentially fatal disease processes in individual sheep. Only recently have population surveys been initiated to investigate exposure to various disease organisms, especially viruses (Parks and England 1974, Chilelli et al. 1982, DeForge et al. 1982, Turner and Payson 1982, Clark et al. 1985). Such surveys are generally concerned with establishing the distribution of diseases among populations rather than a measure of the percent of any population infected or showing evidence of exposure to a particular disease organism. However, establishing the presence or absence of a disease organism is not just a question of finding or not finding evidence of it because sampling probabilities are involved. The purpose of my paper is to present some probability distributions pertinent to the question of the absence of disease organisms in a population. The results are intended to be useful in the planning and interpretation of disease sampling.

I appreciate comments from D. A. Jessup on this manuscript, and fruitful discussions with M. C. Hansen during derivation of the equation used.

M E T D S Any finding of positive serologic or other evidence of the organism

is simple to interpret: the disease organism is present. More d i c u l t to interpret is a negative finding from any sampling. Consequently, the probability distributions generated in this study concern the latter. Probabilities calculated were those for obtaining no positive evidence of a particular disease organism, given (1) a sample size, (2) a total population size, and (3) a proportion of the total population that tests positive. Because recaptured individuals are usually recognizable due to marking, this is a probability problem involving sampling without replacement. The equation derived was:

P(0) = [(qN)! x (N-n)!] l [N! x (qN-n)!] (1)

where P(0) is the probability of obtaining no positive samples for the disease organism, N is the size of the total population, n is the number sampled (randomly) from that population, and q is the proportion of the population that will test negative under the particular laboratory technique used (q = 1-p, where p is the proportion that will test positive). For each case, calculations were carried out for increasing sample sizes only until the probability dropped to 0.05 (the 5% level). Higher confidence levels can be calculated using equation (1).

Results for 6 population sizes (20-200) and 7 levels of infection in the population (10-70%; p = 0.1-0.7) are presented in Table 1. Because population sizes are seldom accurately known, Table 1 can safely be used by choosing the closest population size. The probabilities calculated for a population of 200 can be used for larger populations because values do not change significantly for larger populations. The use of this Table 1 can best be explained by example.

Suppose that 4 sheep were sampled from a population of about 50, and none showed significant titers to parainfluenza-3 (PI-3). Find 4 along the top row of Table 1, and drop down that column until you reach the section for N = 50. Your confidence levels will in each case be 1 - the probabilities in Table 1. Thus, with a 35% confidence (1 - 0.65) the infection rate in that population would be 5 10% (p = 0. I), with 60% confidence that it was 5 20%.


Table I . Probabilities (P) of obtaining no positive samples for a particular disease organism for different sample sizes, given population size (N) and proportion of the population that would test positive if sampled (p). To interpret samplings with no positive results, find the sample size along the top row, then drop down that column to the section with N closest to your population size. For each row in that section, you can state with confidence I-P that the infection level in your population is 5 p. Where P values are missing, the confidence level is > 1-P for the last P value in that row. Probabilities not listed in this table can be calculated using equation (I) .

Table I . SAMPLE SIZE

DISCUSSION The capture of free-ranging bighorn sheep for disease sampling

is generally expensive and sample sizes rarely exceed 10. For the range of population sizes listed, samples < 10 have little resolution relative to the question of presence or absence of a disease organism (Table 1). A sample size of 10 with no positive results allows only a statement with 90% confidence that infection level is 5 20%, or > 95% confidence that it is 5 30% for the larger population sizes. Dropping the population size to 30 for a sample of 10 only raises the confidence level from 90 to 93% that the infection rate is 5 20%. Thus, even a small sample of 10 has limited resolution relative to the question of presence or absence of disease organisms in populations.

Sampling populations with the intent of classifying them as to the presence or absence of disease organisms is not a workable goal. Absence of evidence of a disease can be stated confidently only after the entire population has been sampled; but even to arrive at a statement that the prevalence is 5 10% at a reasonable confidence level requires a large sample size. This was illustrated in the biglong sheep population in the Marble Mountains, California. No significant titers for PI-3 were found in 21 blood samples obtained during 2 bighorn sheep captures in 1983. However, after another 15 blood samples were obtained the following year, positive evidence of PI-3 was found (Clark et al. 1985).


Deforge et al. (1982:79) interpreted their 1981 finding of substantial serologic evidence of PI-3 in the SantaRosaMountains, California, compared with the negative evidence from 10 sheep sampled by Turner and Payson (1982) in 1977, as "indicating recent introduction of the disease organism". However, one can only state with reasonable confidence that the infection level was c: 30% when Turner and Payson (1982) sampled the population. While introduction of the virus is a possibility, a more likely interpretation is that the virus became more widespread. It would be a reasonable hypothesis that PI-3 is present in all bighorn sheep populations in North America where domestic sheep or cattle grazing has occurred. This hypothesis cannot be practically tested because of our inability to establish unambiguous absence in any population without sampling every bighorn sheep. In other words, the hypothesis is not falsifiable, and thus falls outside of the realm of empirical science according to Popper's (1968) criterion of demarcation.

Populations whose samples produce ambiguous results relative to absence of a disease organism are also ambiguous relative to its presence. Consequently, it will not be possible to arrive at the proportion of populations sampled that harbor the organism, except for the case in which positive results are obtained from every population sampled. Given this problem, it is necessary to ask what a meaningful goal of such disease samplings might be. One such goal would be determination of the minimum number of populations infected, wherein the presencelabsence dichotomy is replaced by presence versus undetermined. Another approach might be a classification of high versus low disease activity with 30% prevalence being the cutoff between the 2 categories. With sample sizes r 10, it should often be possible to make statements that disease prevalence is 5 or 2 30% with high confidence levels. However, with this classification a third category will be necessary to include the many sampling results that will not statistically fit into either category with confidence. In some re- gards, the problem lies with wing to pigeonhole populations into categories. Perhaps the most meaningful approach would be to calcu- late confidence limits around any sampling result in terms of percent of population testing positive for the disease organism in question.

LITERATURE CITED Chilelli, C., M. Marshall, and J. G. Songer. 1982. Antileptospiral

agglutinins in sera of desert bighorn sheep. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 26:15-18.

Clark, R. K., D. A. Jessup, M. D. Koch, and R. A. Weaver. 1985. Survey of desert bighorn sheep in California for exposure to selec- tedinfectious diseases. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 187:1175-1179.

DeForge, J. R., D. A. Jessup, C. W. Jenner, and J. E. Scott. 1982. Disease investigations into high lamb mortality of desert bighorn in the Santa Rosa Mountains, California. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 26:76-81.

Parks, J. and J. England. 1974. A serological survey for selected viral infections of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. J. Wildl. Dis. 10: 107-110.

Popper, K. R. 1968. The logic of scientific discovery. Harper and Row, New York, N.Y. 480pp.

Turner, J. C. and J. B. Payson. 1982. Prevalence of antibodies of selected infectious disease agents in the peninsular desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) of the Santa Rosa Moun- tains, California. J. Wildl. Dis. 18:243-245.


DIET OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE VIRGIN MOUNTAINS, ARIZONA DAVID R. SMITH, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources,

365 East 400 Street, Delta, UT 84624

PAUL R. KRAUSMAN, School of Renewable Natural Resources, 325 Biological Sciences East, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 31: 11-14.

Abstract: We determined the diet of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) in the Virgin Mountains, Arizona, from michrohistological analysis of 120 fecal groups collected in summer 1982 and winter, spring, and summer 1983. Fifty-seven plant taxa were identified from bighorn sheep fecal pellets (25, 18, 12, and 2 browse, forb, grass, and cacti species, respectively). Forbs were most common in the fecal pellets of males and females in all seasons. Major forage species consumed in all seasons were globemallow (Sphaeralcea spp.), plantain (Plantago insularis) and common winterfat (Eurotia lanata). There were no significant differences (P < 0.05) between diets of males and females.

Desert bighorn sheep historically occurred in the Virgin and Beaver Dam mountains in northwestern Arizona. However, disease and illegal hunting eliminated bighorn sheep in these mountains (Morgart and Krausman 1981). From 1979 to 1981, 53 desert bighorn sheep were reintroduced in the Virgin Mountains from the Black Mountains, Arizona (Morgart and Krausman 1981, Smith 1985). By 1982, the population was estimated to be 62 bighorn sheep (Smith 1985).

Studies were initiated in 1979 to document the initial status of bighorn sheep in an enclosure (283 ha) in the Virgin Mountains (Morgart and Krausman 1981; Morgart, U.S. Bur. Reclamation, unpubl. data). Smith (1985) and Cunningham (Ariz. Game and Fish, unpubl, data) monitored the population when it was released from the enclosure. However, habitat parameters important to this herd have not been documented. Morgart et al. (1986) determined the quality

of bighorn sheep forage within the enclosure but forage consumption by free-ranging bighorn sheep in the Virgin Mountains has not been reported. Our objectives were to determine the diet of free-ranging bighorn sheep in the Virgin Mountains and determine if diets were different between sexes.

STUDY AREA The reintroduced sheep used portions (> 200 krn2) of the Virgin

and Beaver Dam mountains, 7 km east of Beaver Dam, Mohave County, Arizona. Elevations range from 510 m at the Virgin River Gorge to 2,400 m on Mt. Bangs. The geology of the Beaver Dam and Virgin mountains is described by Moore (1972).

Mean temperatures in the Virgin Mountains vary from 8 C in December and January to 31 C in July and August. Precipitation falls predominantly from November through March with a 19 cm yearly mean (Sellers and Hill 1972). Seasons based on precipitation and temperature include winter (Dec-Feb), spring (Mar-May), summer (Jun-Aug) , and fall (Sep-Nov) .

Six vegetation types were used by the sheep: creosote bush (Larrea tridentam)-white bursage (Franseria dumosa) flats, upper and lower mixed Mohave desert shrub, riparian, blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosis- sima), and singleleaf pinyon pine (Pinus monophyl1a)-Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma). Bighorn sheep habitat in the Virgin Moun- tains is described by Smith (1985).

u


METHODS Bighorn sheep were radio-collared (20 in Nov 198 1 and 11 in Jan

1982); 21 were marked with colored cloth collars (Nov 1981). We located radio-collared sheep on the ground with a hand-held TR-2 receiver and dipole antenna (Telonics, h c . , Mesa, Ark ) to collect fresh fecal pellets. All fecal pellets were collected from the ground in 1982 and 1983 12 hours after we observed bighorn sheep deposit them. We attempted to collect equal numbers of pellets from rams and ewes for winter, spring, and summer. We were not in the field in the fall.

Diet was determined by michrohistological analysis of 120 pellet groups at the Forage Analysis Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson. During winter and spring 1979-80 plants were collected from

RESULTS Fifty-seven plant species were identified in bighorn sheep diets in

the Virgin Mountains during winter and spring 1983 and the summers of 1982 and 1983 (25, 18, 12, and 2, forb, browse, grass, and cacti species, respectively) (Table 1). The estimated diets of bighorn sheep consisted of 53.5% forbs, 27.3% browse, 16.6% grasses, and 2.4% succulents. There were no significant differences in the proportions of forbs, browse, grasses, or succulents in male and female diets, or between seasons for either sex (P = 0.05). Although our samples were not statistically different between males and females, trends were evident. Forbs comprised the highest proportion of the diet for all sheep during all seasons. Forbs consistently comprised a higher proportion of the diet of females than males. Browse, grasses, and suc-

the field and prepared as a reference collection for comparison with culents made up higher proportions of male diets during each season plant parts from fecal pellets. Collected pellets were stored in 70% (Table 1). alcohol until analysis. Bighorn pellet groups, segregated by sex, were Eight forb, 5 browse, 4 grasses, and 1 succulent species were the randomly composited with 5 4 pellet groups/composite. One slide1 major food items (2 5% of the diet for males or females in any composite was analyzed and 20 randomly selected microscopic fields/ season) (Table 1). Globemallow was a major forb species in all sea- slide were sampled. To insure precise determination, a field was sons. Plantain represented 5.4 and 18.6% of male and female diets, sampled if it contained 2 7-10 identifiable particles. This was achieved respectively, in the spring and continued to make up 2 5% of bighorn by blending the fecal material until particle sizes were consistent and diets in winter (Table 1). Louisiana sagewort (Artemesia ludoviciana) evenly distributed within the medium. Based on these criteria 20 was used heavily in summer by males and females (19.6 and 10.2%, fielddslide were always sampled. Holechek and Vavra (1981) deter- respectively). Other major forb species were used heavily in the winter mined that major forage species can be accurately determined with 1 and spring (Table 1). slide. Thirty slides for ewes and 26 slides for rams were prepared Winter-fat was a major browse species in winter and spring for following Sparks and Malechek (1968). Twenty randomly selected females and in all seasons for males. Mormon-tea (Ephedra spp.) was microscopic fieldslslide were read and compared between sex and used by both sexes in summer. Ratany (Krameria spp.) was used by season with a paired t-test (Zar 1984). Plant names follow Scott and males in spring and summer (Table 1). Wasser (1980). Major grasses found in fecal pellets were grarna (Bouteloua spp.)

that comprised 9.9 and 8.3% of male and female diets, respectively, and needlegrass (Stipa spp.) that was used by males in winter. Foxtail brome (Bromus rubens) and big galleta (Hilaria rigida) were major items in bighorn diets in summer (Table 1).

Barrel cactus (Ferocactus acanthodes) was a major part of male diets in summer. Barrel cactus, cholla (Opuntia spp.), and pricklypear (Opuntia spp.) were used increasingly from spring to summer. Barrel cacti hollowed out by bighorns were often found in areas with little or no available water. The proportion of succulents in the diet may be underestimated because they may fail to appear in the fecal analysis.


Table 1. Winter (Dec-Feb), spring (Mar-May), and summer (Jun-Aug) forages identiJed from I20 desert bighorn sheep pellet groups collected in the Virgin Mountains, Arizona 1982-83.

Winter Spring Summer

Forage M F M F M F

Forbs Acorrrtia wrightii Anemone hrberosa Arabisperennans Artemisia ludoviciana Astragalus spp. Baileya mrrltiradiata Borage spp. Camissonin mrrltijuga Castelleja chromosoma Descrrrainia sophia Diraxis neomexicana Erigeron spp. Erigonrrm injlatum Eriophyllrtm wallecei Eriodum cicutarizrm Lesquerella gordonii b h u S p p . Lripinrrs spp. Notlzolaena parryii Pelleae longimrrcronata Perezia spp. Phacelia spp. Plantago insularis Sphaeralcea spp. Tidestromia lanuginosa Unknown

Total forb

Browse Ambrosia dumosa Artemisia tridentata Atriplex canescens Brickellia atractyloides Ceanothrrs greggii Enceliafrrttescens Ephedra spp. Eriogonum fasciculaturn Eriogonrrm wrightii Ecrrotia lanata Galirrm spp. Janusia gracilus Krameria spp. Larrea tridentata Prosopis jrrlijora Quercrrs trirbinella Rhus trilobata Salazeria mexicana Unknown

Total browse

Grasses Andropogon spp. Aristida prrrpurea Bouteloua spp. Bromrrs rubens Erioneuron pulchell~~m Hilaria rigida Muhlenbergia porteri Oryzopsis hymenoides Poa spp. Schizmrrs barbatus Sporobohrs spp. Sripa spp. Unknown

Total grass

Succulents Ferocachrs acanthodes Oprrntia spp. Total succulents


DISCUSSION The proportion of forage classes used by bighorn sheep in the

Virgin Mountains differed from studies by Barrett (1964), J.R. Mor- gart et al. (U.S. Bur. Land Manage., St. George, Ut., unpubl. rep., 1981.), and Elenowitz (1983). Browse dominated diets in winter, spring, and summer, in southern New Mexico (Elenowitz 1983), whereas grasses dominated diets in winter, spring, and summer on the Desert Game Range in southern Nevada (Barrett 1964). In the bighorn sheep enclosure in the Virgin Mountains, forage class use fluctuated each season (Morgart et al. 1986).

The high occurence of forbs in bighorn sheep diets should be an important influence on bighorn productivity. Morgart et al. (1986) performed a chemical analysis of 18 forage species from the Virgin Mountain sheep enclosure. Forbs had higher levels of phosphorus and protein in the spring than browse or grass species consumed by bighorn sheep. The higher nutritional level would benefit females during late pregnancy and lactation (Turner and Hansen 1980). The mean lambing date of the 1983 season in the Virgin Mountains was 4 April (SE = 0.8 days), based on estimated birthdates (Caughley 1977). Precipita- tion in fall, winter, and spring is important for the successful vegetation and reproductive growth of winter annuals in the Mohave Desert (Beatley 1974). Leslie and Douglas (1986) found lamb survival was influenced by autumn precipitation. The available winter annuals were important in detetmining the physical condition of females during late pregnancy and lactation. Autumn precipitation also increased bighorn sheep movements away from permenant water which may have released foraging pressure.

Lamb survival appears to be high in the Virgin Mountains. In 1983, 18 lambs were born and survived at least through August. Eleven lambs were observed in 1982. This may be a conservative estimate of births because sheep were not located on the ground until mid-May of that year and lambs may have died before ground work began. Early lamb survival is dependant on maternal nutrition (Geist 1971). Desert bighorn females allocated more energy to milk production and weaned their lambs at earlier dates than the California or Rocky Mountain subspecies (Berger 1979). However, lambs that are weaned early often appear to be in poorer condition (Berger 1979). In our study the abundance of forbs in the spring and early summer of 1983 may have resulted in lambs being in good physical condition when weaned and better able to survive through the summer.

Summer ranges with poorer forage quality (lower forb biomass) result in lower mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) productivity than summer ranges with higher forage quality in central Utah (Pederson and Harper 1978). We did not determine if available forb biomass affects bighorn sheep productivity, but forb quality and abundance are important to bighorn sheep productivity and recruitment.

LITERATURE CITED Barrett, R. H. 1964. Seasonal food habits of the bighorn at the Desert

Game Range, Nevada. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 8:85-93. Beatley, J. C.7974. Phenological events and their environmental

triggers in Mohave Desert ecosystems. Ecology 55:856-863. Berger, J. 1979. Weaning conflict in desert and mountain bighorn

sheep (Ovis canadensis): an ecological interpretation. Z. Tierpsy- chol. 50:188-200.

Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of vertebrate populations. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. New York, N.Y. 234pp.

Elenowitz, A. 1983. Habitat use and population dynamics of transplanted desert bighorn sheep in the Peloncillo Mountains, New Mexico. M.S. Thesis, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. 158pp.

Geist, V. 1971. Mountain sheep: a study in behavior and evolution. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. 383pp.

Holechek, J. L. and M. Vavra. 1981. The effect of slide and frequency observation numbers on the precision of microhistological analysis. J. Range Manage. 34:337-338.

Leslie, D. M., Jr., and C. L. Douglas. 1986. Modeling demographics of bighorn sheep: current abilities and missing links. Trans. North Am. Wild. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 51:62-73.

Moore, R. T. 1972. Geology of the Virgin and Beaver Dam Mountains, Arizona. Ariz. Bur. of Mines Bull. 186:l-65.

Morgart, J. R., and P. R. Krausman. 198 1. The status of a transplanted bighorn population in Arizona using an enclosure. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 25:46-49.

, W. H. Brown, and F. M. Whiting. 1986. Chemical analysis of mountain sheep forage in the Virgin Mountains, Arizona. Univ. Arizona, Coll. Agric. Tech. Bull. 257. 1 1 ~ ~ .

Pederson, J. C., and K. T. Harper. 1978. Factors influencing productivity of two mule deer herds in Utah. J. Range Manage. 31:105-110.

Scott, T. G., and C. H. Wasser. 1980. Checklist of North American plants for wildlife biologists. The Wildl. Soc., Wash., D.C. 58pp.

Sellers, W. D. , andR. H. Hill, eds. 1974. Arizonaclimate 1931-1972. Second ed. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson. 616pp.

Sparks, D. R., and J. C. Malechek. 1968. Estimating percentage dry weight in diets using a microscopic technique. J. Range Manage. 2 1 :264-265.

Smith, D. R. 1985. Movements, habitat use, and forage use of reintroduced desert bighorn sheep. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Arizona, Tucson. 5 2 ~ ~ .

Turner, J. C., and C. G. Hansen. 1980. Reproduction. Pages 145-151 in The desert bighorn. G. Monson and L. Sumner, eds. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson.

Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J. 717pp.


DIURNAL SUMMER ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF CAPTIVE DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

HENRY E. MCCUTCHEN, 3009 Ringneck Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80526

Desert Bighorn Coun. Trans. 31: 15-17.

Abstract: I observed 5 diurnal activity patterns from ewes in a captive herd of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) at Zion National Park, Utah during summer 1975. The patterns are compared to those obtained in 1979 after the herd was released into the wild. In both cases feeding dominated the diurnal period with intermittent short bedding periods. Feeding activity was primarily crepuscular. Activity budgets were similar between the 2 years and situations. There was no evidence of nocturnal activity in 1975.

Daily activity patterns of free-ranging desert bighorn sheep have been the subject of interest of research projects (Welles and Welles 1961, Wilson 1968, Welch 1969, Olech 1979, Chilelli and Krausman 1981, McCutchen 1984, Krausman et al. 1985). To date, although captive herds exist, there have been no published reports of activity patterns of captive desert bighorn sheep.

During the reintroduction program at Zion National Park, Utah, there was an opportunity to study the same herd of desert bighorn sheep in captivity and after release. McCutchen (1984) discussed diurnal summer activity patterns of the herd after its release from captivity. In this paper I present comparable data on activity patterns for bighorn sheep in captivity during the summer of 1975.

Several institutions and individuals were involved in this cooperative project, including the National Park Service, the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the Nevada State Department'of Fish and Game, and the Zion Natural History Association. J. Pfender of the Student Conservation Association assisted with data collection. I also acknowledge the support of R. Heyder and D. Stevens, Zion National Park.

STUDY AREA The study area was located in Zion Canyon, Zion National Park,

Utah, with an elevation of about 1,300 m. The mean high and low summer temperatures were 38 and 16 C, respectively. The mean annual precipitation was 37 cm. The bighorn sheep were released in a fenced natural habitat enclosure (30 ha), that was approximately 1,000-m x 300-m with the length parallel to the Virgin River. Approxi- mately 20 ha were on a slightly sloping floodplain adjacent to the river, with vegetation consisting of a dense stand of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and remnant strands of sand drop-seed (Sporobolus cryptatz- drus) and four-wing salt-bush (Aaiplex canescens). The other 10 ha were on a steep, rugged, talus slope that ended at the base of a sheer 30 m high sandstone cliff. The vegetation of this area contained a pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and juniper (Juniperus utahensis) over- story, a mid-story of service-berry (Amelanchier utahensis) and green ephedra (Ephedra viridis), and a grass understory of several species including galleta (Hilaria jamesii) and Indian rice-grass (Olyzopsis hymenoides). The vegetation in the enclosure was heavily used. McCutchen (1975) presents a more detailed description of the study area.

Twelve desert bighorn sheep from Nevada were released into the enclosure in 1973. By summer of 1975 the population had increased to 19 animals; 8 ewes, 7 lambs, 3 yearlings, and 1 mature ram (McCutchen 1976). To increase the carrying capacity of the enclosure

and maintain bighorn condition, alfalfa hay was placed In hayracks and was available ad libitum.

METHODS The methods were similar to those described by McCutchen

(1984). Seven ewes were marked with color-coded collars but all animals could be individually identified. I obtained observations of 1 diurnal (dawn to dark) activity pattern a week. On some days activity data could not be collected because the focal animal moved out of sight. Observations were made with 7 x 50 binoculars and a 15 x 60 variable-powered spotting scope; a spotlight was used for night observations. Several canvas blinds were constructed along the outside perimeter to assist in concealing observers. A truck was also used as a blind.

One ewe (No. 4) was selected as the focal animal (Altmann 1974) and monitored continually during the day. On 1 day another ewe (No. 5) was used as the focal animal because number 4 was not observed early in the morning. Each animal's behavior was continually monitored and the time was recorded when any activity change occured. I attempted to determine the extent of nocturnal activity by observing animals at dusk prior to the sampling day, then again at dawn the following morning. Mountain daylight savings time was used throught- out the periods reported here.

To provide a comparison of the 1975 data with the 1979 data (McCutchen 1984) only 5 daily activity patterns during June (n = 2), July (n = 1) and August (n = 2), 1975 are discussed. These days were selected because they provided continuous activity data.

Following the analysis method used on the 1979 data set (McCutchen 1984), the 1975 composite summer daily activity pattern was created by calculating a frequency of occurence for each activity category for each quarter-hour interval, summing across the 5 observed diurnal patterns. For example, at 0900, 3 of the 5 observations were of bighorn sheep resting, and 2 were for feeding. Thus, resting and feeding occurred at 60 and 40%, respectively, for that time. '


RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The composite daily activity pattern for captive bighorn sheep in

1975 showed that they spent most of their time feeding during the day (Fig. 1). Short bedding periods alternated with the feeding periods. There were 6 periods during the day when feeding or other active behaviors occupied > 50% of the time. These were from daylight to 0815,0900-1030, 1100-1215, 1230-1330,1415-1530, and 1700-2100 hours. Conversely there were 5 interim periods of resting, (range = 30-90 min.).

During summer 1979 there were 3 periods during the day when active behavior occurred >50% of the time (McCutchen 1984). This difference from the 1975 pattern may be an artifact of small sample size. Feeding was the dominant diurnal activity in both years. In the captive herd a crepuscular pattern of feeding occurred. The longest feeding periods were around dawn and for 2-3 hours before dark (Fig. 1). This pattern was also observed in 1979 in the free-ranging animals (Fig. 1). Similar patterns have been recorded for other desert bighorn herds (Wilson 1968, Chilelli and Krausman 1981, and Krausman et al. 1985).

Krausman et al. (1985) showed that desert bighorn activity was inversely correlated with temperature. This suggests that crepuscular activity is a strategy used by bighorn sheep to avoid excessive heat during the day. My observations on the bighorn sheep in Zion support this correlation. However, Krausman et al. (1985) determined that desert bighorn sheep feed at night for shorter periods than at dawn and sunset. At Zion National Park there were no observations of night time feeding. Night time activity was difficult to observe for the free-ranging animals (McCutchen 1979) but the captive bighorn sheep at Zion foraged during the day. The herd climbed onto the protective cliffs at or after dark and remained bedded overnight. Periodic night watches and spotlight checks confirmed this activity on many occa- sions. However, it is possible that brief feeding periods occurred. Bighorn sheep usually left their overnight bedding sites before it was light enough to observe a focal animal. Thus, the data does not show when the overnight bedding period ended (Fig. 1).

For individual 1975 activity budgets, resting and feeding were the dominant diurnal activities (Table 1) occurring 90.5% of the daylight period. Feeding was the major activity ranging from 372 to 625 minutes during any 1 diurnal period and averaging 62.2% of the time. Bighorns fed 57.9% of the time on natural forage and 4.3% of the time at the hay supplement. Bedding occurred 29.3% of the time.

The summer activity budgets of the captive animals in 1975 were similar (Table 1) to those for the free-ranging bighorn sheep at Zion in 1979 (McCutchen 1984). The 1979 activity budget was 56% feeding and 36% bedding (Table 1). Activity budgets of the herd Krausman et al. (1985) studied were similar with a daily average of 755 minutes of active behavior or 52% of any 24-hour period. Five elements of the activity budgets (bedding, feeding, moving, standing, and drinking) for the 2 years were compared with the sign test (Lehner 1979:254). There was no significant difference (P > 0.10) between the 2 activity budgets. I expected that captive bighorn sheep within the heavily grazed enclosure, even with supplemental food, would have had greater feeding times than the free-ranging herd.

Field studies of pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) and domestic cattle (Ellis and Travis 1975), and impala (Aepyceros melam- pus) (Jarman and Jarman 1973) show that time spent feeding is greater in areas of low forage quality and quantity. I hypothesized (McCutchen 1984) that desert bighorn sheep activity budgets should reflect aspects of habitat quality and arrangement. When compared, the same animals in captivity or free-ranging showed no major differences in summer diurnal activity budgets. Artificial feeding of captive bighorn sheep in the heavily grazed enclosure maintained the sheep on a high-quality diet and may have mitigated otherwise detectable differences.

a Feeding, Moving, Interacting (Z9 Standing

Bedding

T IME OF DAY

COMPOSITE SUMMER OURNAL ACTIVITY PATTERNS- 1979

Figure l a . Composite summer diurnal activity palterns for captive desert bighorns, Zion Nationalpark, Utah, June-August 1975. l b . Composite summer diurnal activity patterns for free-ranging desert bighorns, Zion National Park, Utah, 1979 (graph from McCutchen 1984).


Table 1. Five diurnal activity budgets of captive desert bighorn ewes in Zion National Park, Utah, during summer 1975, with a summary comparison of summer 1979 activity budget.

Min. of daily activity 1979" 19 27 25 15 22 1975 1975 1975

Jun Jun Jul Aug Aug x SD f % 2%

Ewe No.

Activity and observation period 4 5 4 4 4

Bedding 226 265 341 205 120 23 1.4 81 .O 29.3 36.0

Natural forage feeding 554 344 372 605 411 457.2 115.6 57.9 56.0

Hayrack feeding 30 79 20 39 33.6 29.2 4.3

Moving 26 10 8 8.8 10.6 1.1 4.0

Standing 15 29 11 11.0 12.1 1.4 2.0

Drinking

Not observed

Total 818 733 832 840 725 789.6 55.9

Daylight observation period (hr)

a From McCutchen (1984).

bminute of daily activity observed.

LITERATURE CITED Altmann, J. 1974. Observational study of behavior; sampling methods.

Behaviour 49:227-267. CMlelli, M., and P. R. Krausman. 1981. Group organization and

activity patterns of desert bighorn sheep. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 25: 17-24.

Ellis, J. E., and M. Travis. 1975. Comparative aspects of foraging behavior of pronghorn antelope and cattle. J. Appl. Ecol. 59:411-420.

Jarman, P. V., and P. J. Jarman. 1973. Daily activity of impala. East Afr. Wildl. J. 11:75-92.

Krausman, P. R., S. Torres, L. L. Ordway, J. J. Hervert, and M. Brown. 1985. Die1 activity of ewes in the Little Harquahala Moun- tains, Arizona. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 29:24-26.

Lehner, P. N. 1979. Handbook of ethological methods. Garland, STPM Press, New York, N.Y. 403pp.

McCutchen, H. E. 1975. Desert bighorn restoration at Zion National Park, Utah. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 19: 19-27.

. 1976. Status of Zion National Park bighorn restoration project, 1975. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 2052-54.

. 1979. Status of the Zion desert bighorn reintroduction project, 1978. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 23:8l.

. 1984. Summer activity patterns of free-ranging desert bighorns, Zion National Park, ~ t & . besert sighom ~ o u n c T ~ r a n s . 28:9-11.

Olech, L. A. 1979. Summer activity rhythms of peninsular bighorn sheep in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, San Diego County, California. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 23:33-36.

Welch, R. D. 1969. Behavioral patterns of desert bighorn sheep in south-central New Mexico. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 13: . . 114-129.

Welles, R. E., and F. B. Welles. 1961. The bighorn of Death Valley. '

U.S. Natl. Park Sew., Fauna Ser. 6. 242pp. Wilson, L. 0. 1968. Distribution and eco1og;-of the desert bighorn

sheep in soutlieastern Utah. Utah Dep. Nat. Resourc. and Div. Fish and Game Publ. 68-5: 1-220.


PNEUMONIA IN A TRANSPLANTED POPULATION OF BIGHORN SHEEP

ANDREW V. SANDOVAL, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, VillagraBuilding, State Capitol, SantaFe, NM 87503

AMY S. ELENOWITZ, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Villagra Building, State Capitol, Santa Fe, NM 87503

JAMES R. DEFORGE, Bighorn Research Institute, P.O. Box 262, Palm Desert. CA 92261

Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 31: 18-22.

Abstract: In June 1981, 28 desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nzexicana), (10 ewes from Ariz., 10 rams from N.M., and 8 lambs sired in Ariz.) were released from a paddock in the Peloncillo Moun- tains, Hidalgo County, New Mexico. All 10 rams and 5 of 8 lambs died within 2 and 5 months post-release, respectively. The population was subsequently augmented with 2 rams from New Mexico, 4 rams and 10 ewes from Arizona. Clinical symptoms and laboratory results indicated chronic fibrinopurulent bronchopneumonia as the cause of death. Corynebacterium pyogenes, Pasteurella multocida, Neisseria spp., and Coccidiodes immitis were isolated from pulmonary tissue of dead bighorn sheep. Serologic test results of animals that comprised the initial transplant revealed that ewes from Arizona were seropositive to epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) and contagious ecthyma (CE), but negative to bluetongue (BT). Rams from New Mexico were seropositive to EHD, CE, BT and parainfluenza-3 (PI-3). Subsequent to the die-off, serologic test results revealed titers to BT, PI-3, EHD, CE, bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) and Q-fever (Q-F). Cattle had titers to BT, PI-3, and EHD. A few titers that could only be suspect to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) and BVD were also found in cattle.

Pneumonia is a major disease problem in all races of bighorn sheep (Buechner 1960, Allen 1980). All Rocky Mountain bighorn ( 0 , c. canadensis) are susceptible to die-offs due to the lungworm (Protostrongylus spp.) pneumonia complex (Pillmore 1961, Post 1971, Wishart et al. 1980, Spraker and Hibler 1982). Arid regions, however, are virtually free of the Protostrongylus spp. parasite and the etiology of the disease in desert bighorn sheep is poorly understood. In free-ranging populations of desert bighorn sheep, pneumonia primarily affects lambs. A combination of BT and PI-3 viruses has been documented to predispose desert bighorn lambs to bacterial pneumonia (DeForge et al., unpubl. data).

In this paper we describe an outbreak of fatal pneumonia that resulted after a transplant of 2 different geographic races of desert bighorn sheep into the same area. Serologic test results obtained pre- and post-die-off and recommendations on the feasibility of mixing different populations of bighorn sheep are presented.

The assistance of C. Hibler, T. Spraker, J. Scott, L. Seibert, N. Smith and S. Henry is greatly appreciated. Acknowledgement is due to E. Roos, W. Walters and J. McCarty for their cooperation in allowing testing of cattle. D. Sandoval typed the report. The Bureau of Land Management provided funding for helicopter work. Financial assistance was provided by the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep. Desert bighorn sheep research and management in New Mexico is being conducted under Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-127-R.

METHODS Twelve desert bighorn ewes were captured between 24-26

November 1980, in the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR) and Plomosa Mountains, western Arizona. Bighorn sheep were captured by helicopter darting. The sheep were examined, radio collared, ear tagged, measured and inoculated against CE, BT, and psoroptic scabies prior to transport. The sheep were transported in an enclosed trailer and released on 27 November 1980 into a 16-ha holding paddock in the Peloncillo Mountains, southwestern New Mexico. For a description of the study area refer to Sandoval (1982) andElenowitz (1983).

The paddock was situated on a north-south ridge between 1,463 and 1,585 m elevation. The area consisted of numerous vertical rock outcrops and provided excellent cover, concealment, and lambing grounds for the bighorn. A rain catchment provided permanent water. Quantity of native forage was good. During confinement, sheep consumed > 900 kg of supplemental feed in the form of pelletized grain mixture. Mineralized salt was available ad libitum.

Between January and March 1981, 8 lambs sired in Arizona were born. On 7 May 1981, 10 rams from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) propagating facilities at Red Rock were released into the paddock to supplement the 10 ewes and 8 lambs. The rams ranged from 3.5 to 8.5 years in age. All were radio collared, inoculated against psoroptic scabies and blood samples were obtained. The rams occupied the relatively open west slope of the paddock, while the ewes and lambs preferred the more rugged east slope. Both groups were occasionally observed watering and feeding together on the grain mixture.

The fence was opened on 26 June 1981, allowing both ram and ewe-juvenile groups to leave the paddock as a free-ranging population. The ewes and rams had been retained for 7 and 2 months, respectively.

To assist with reproduction, 2 additional radio collared rams from New Mexico, 3.5 and 4.5 years of age, were released directly into the wild on 27 September 1981. These rams had been confined at New Mexico State University for >1 year and were being used in drug and cross-transmission experiments with psoroptic scabies prior to release.

On 11 January 1982, 4 adult rams from western Arizona were released directly into the wild. The final supplement to the population consisted of a wild release of 10 adult ewes from western Arizona on 8 November 1982. All of the animals were radio-collared, inoculated against CE, BT and psoroptic scabies. We obtained nasal and rectal swabs, fecal samples and ear scrapings. A prophylactic injection of a broad spectrum antibiotic was administered.

One ram was collected to obtain fresh tissue samples. One ram died while being treated with terramycin injectable solution. All car- casses were examined within 48 hours following death. Necropsies were performed in the field on all but 1 ram, and tissue samples were collected from 4 animals. Photographs were taken of the gross mor- phological changes observed at necropsy. Sections of tongue, trachea, endocrine gland, lymph node, lung, heart, liver, kidney, spleen, rumen and bone marrow were collected and preserved in 10% formalin. Fresh tissue and blood were initially kept on wet ice and shipped to Colorado State University on dry ice. Histologic examinations were conducted at Colorado State University Wild Animal Disease Diagnos- tic Laboratory, Fort Collins, and the New Mexico Department of Agriculture Veterinary Diagnostic Services Laboratory, Albuquerque. Bacteriological examination was performed at Colorado State Univer- sity. Serological evaluation was performed at the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Veterinary Services Laboratory, Ames, Iowa. Ear scrapings were analyzed for the presence of psoroptic mites at the Scabies Research Laboratory, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

Treatment for clinical symptoms of pneumonia was attempted using 2 bait stations consisting of pelletized alfalfa-grain mixture laced with oxytetracycline and neo-terramycin powder concentrate. Mineral supplement containing molasses was added to the alfalfa-grainlneo-terramycin mixture to mask the taste of the neo-terramycin.


A study to identify the disease process was subsequently conducted in cooperation with the Bighorn Research Institute (BRI), Palm Desert, California. During December 1985, 14 bighorn (8 ewes, 4 rams, 1 yearling ram, and 1 ewe lamb) were captured, sampled and radio collared. The objective was to obtain samples from 3 different herds experiencing different levels of lamb mortality. Eight animals were sampled from the Gray Peak and Burro Canyon herds where lamb survival has been poor and contact with cattle is common, while 5 were sampled from the Granite Peak herd where lamb survival has been good. Samples were also obtained from 8 cows whose range over- lapped with the range of bighorn sheep.

Bighorn sheep were captured by helicopter net gunning. Blood samples were obtained by jugular puncture immediately after capture and transferred to vacutainer glass tubes for serologic, virus isolation and blood chemistry analyses. Whole blood in sterile tubes was allowed to clot at room temperature then centrifuged for 20 minutes for seym separation. Lung fluid was transtracheally aspirated from 1 adult ewe. Nasal swabs were obtained to survey respiratory pathogens, and fecal samples were collected to evaluate parasitic diseases. With the exception of lung fluid and fecal samples, the same samples were obtained, using similar techniques, from domestic cows. All samples were shipped daily by overnight delivery to BRI contract laboratories.

RESULTS Ram Mortality

All 10 rams from New Mexico that comprised the initial transplant died within 2 months post-release. Pneumonic symptoms were first observed on 22 July 1981, 1 month post-release. Clinical symptoms included sporadic and long coughing spasms, cloudy white mucoid nasal discharge, shallow and abnormally rapid respiration, lethargic and depressed behavior, dazed disposition, reluctance to move when approached, and a stiff-gaited and emaciated physical condition. All rams died within 3 km of the release site. The first rams that died were in good body condition with fat reserves and normal pelage. Rams that survived became emaciated and breathing was labored with a rasping sound. There was a tendency for rams to remain sedentary r 1 week preceding their deaths (Elenowitz 1983).

Of the 2 additional rams transplanted from New Mexico on 27 September, 1 successfully bred 5 ewes from Arizona before he died of pneumonia 42 days after associating with the ewes. The second ram, which was alive at the end of the study, left the Peloncillo Mountains permanently.

Treatment (bait stations containing soluble oxytetracycline and neo-terramycin powder, with alfalfa-grain mixture and mineral supplement) began on 29 August 1981, and continued for 2 months; it was not effective. Use of the treatment stations was probably compromised by heavy rain showers and resultant green forage.

Clinical signs and laboratory results indicating chronic fibrinopurulent bronchopneumonia was the cause of death with Co7yizebacteriurn pyogenes, Pasteurella multocida, and Neisseria spp., as the causative pathogens. Cocciodes inzinitis was recovered from the mediastinal pluera of 1 ram. The finding of C, inzn~itis was the first ever in bighorn sheep. The organism is well known as a primary agent in humans, dogs, and cattle and probably played a role in the development of this fatal pneumonia. Necropsies revealed adhesions of the pleura from lungs to the thoracic wall and diaphragm; consolidation of the apical, cardiac, and ventral portions of the diaphramatic lobes of the lungs; along with fibrin deposits and abcesses.

Ewe Mortality Two ewes died during confinement. One was caught in a fence

and died and 1 ewe fell from a cliff. Three ewes displayed clinical symptoms of pneumonia, however, no weight loss was evident and none succumbed to disease. Their symptoms (sporadic coughing) were mild compared to the rams.

Lamb Mortality Five of the 8 lambs born during 1981 died within 5 months post-re-

lease. Only 1 survived to be recruited into the population. Symptoms included depressed behavior, weight loss, and coughing paroxysms. Some lambs coughed continuously for several minutes. The spasms began head-up and progressed to an open-mouth, with the head extended forward and down in a back arched position. Some were observed with a cloudy-white and/or clear watery mucoid nasal discharge. Large quantities of discharge were expelled orally. One lamb carcass was found in an advanced stage of decomposition (Elenowitz 1983).

Trends in reproductive performance from 1981 to 1986 indicate that productivity was sufficient to warrant an increasing population. High lamb mortality, however, has plagued the population since the first introduction (Table 1). Currently, the population is stable at 29 (17,10, and 7%, rams, yearlings, and lambs, respectively).

Table 1. Desert bighorn sheep lamb productivity and survival in the Peloncillo Mountains, New Mexico, 1981-85.

Year

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 - - - - - No. adult ewes 10 8 19 19 18 No. lambsa 8 5 8 8 3 No. survivedb 1 1 2 2 1 % survival 12 20 25 25 33

'No. lambs observed during spring surveys. b~urvival to the yearIing cohort.


Serology and Bacteriology Results All of the ewes from Arizona (n = 12) released into the paddock

in November 1980, were serologically positive to EHD, and 60% were positive to CE. All were negative to BT. These ewes, however, were not tested for exposure to PI-3 virus. The rams from New Mexico (n = 10) were seropositive to EHD, CE, BT, and PI-3 when released into the paddock with the ewes in May 1981 (Table 2).

The 4 rams from Arizona transplanted in January 1982 were seropositive to PI-3, 75% were positive to CE and all were negative to BT and EHD (Table 2). Non-hemolytic Escherichia coli and alpha Streptococcus were cultured from 3 of 4 rectal swabs and alpha Strep- tococcus from 1. Bacillus spp., Bacillus subtillis, and beta-hemolytic Staphylococcus were cultured from 1 nasal swab. Corynebacterium spp, was cultured from a second and non-hemolytic E. coli from the third. No bacterial growth occurred on the fourth nasal swab. These rams have not developed any signs of pneumonia. One ram, however, subsequently died of chronic sinusitis. The ewes from Arizona (n = 10) released directly into the wild in 1982 were negative to BT, EHD and PI-3, but 30% were positive to CE (Table 2). No medical data are available for the 2 additional rams from New Mexico released directly into the wild.

Results obtained from 14 free-ranging bighorn sampled during December 1985 revealed titers to BT, PI-3, EHD, CE, BVD, and Q-F. Differences in the history of disease exposure between desert bighorn sheep from Granite Peak (good lamb survival) and desert bighorn sheep from Gray Mountain and Burro Canyon (poor lamb survival) were not clear. There may be some indication, however, of a pattern in PI-3 titer activity. The titers from the hemagglutination inhibition test from bighorn on Granite Peak were all negative. Also, the serum neutralization test for PI-3 gave low titers from these animals (Table 3). Virus isolation attempts were consistently negative from blood clots, nasal swabs, and the tracheal wash. Blood chemistry and hematology values were within normal ranges. The only exception

was 1 ram that exhibited a fairly high white blood cell count (16.5 10~/1nm vs, a mean of 8.7 10~1mm [n = 9]), suggesting some type of infection. Bacterial cultures revealed Pseudomonasflourescens, P. cepacia, Enterbacter agglomerans, E. cloacae, Bacillus spp., Strep- tococcus faecalis, alpha hemolytic Streptococcus, beta hemolytic Streptococcus, Staphylococcus aureus, Alcaligenes faecalis, and Corynebacterium spp. Pasteurella spp, was not cultured, which is the common species usually found in bighorn pneumonias. Pseudomonas spp., however, was found in 70% of the animals tested. This pathogen has been consistently cultured from pneumonic bighorn sheep in California (DeForge et al., unpubl. data).

Cattle had titers to BT, PI-3, and EHD. A few titers that could only be suspect to IBR and BVD were also found (Table 4). No viruses were isolated. Cattle had nasal flora similar to that of the bighorn sheep.

Table 2. Serology test results of desert bighorn sheep released in the Peloncillo Mountains, New Mexico, 1980-82.

%Positive (incidence) [titer range]

Testing Pathogena methodb Ariz. ewes-1980 N.M. rams-1981 Ariz. rams-1982 Ariz. ewes-1982 BT ID O(0112) 100(10/10) 0(0/4) O(Ol10) EHD ID 17(1/12) 100(10/10) O(Ol4) O(0110) CE CF 50(6/12)[1:10-1:20] 70(7/10)[1:10-1:80] 75(3/4)[1:5-1:20] 30(3/10)[1:5-1:10] PI-3 SN 100(10/10)[1:32-1:28] 100(4/4)[1:32-1:64] O(Ol10)

"BT = bluetongue, EHD = epizootic hemorrhagic disease, CE = contagious ecthyma, PI-3 = parainfluenza-3. bID = imrnunodiffusion test, CF = complement fixation test, SN = serum neutralization test.

Table 3. Summary of disease study from free-ranging desert bighorn sheep in the Peloncillo Mountains, New Mexico, December 1985.

% positive (incidence) [titer range]

Testing Pathogena methodb Granite Peak Gray Mountain Burro Canyon

PI-3 SN lOO(515) [1:8-1:16] lOO(414) [1:8-1:16] lOO(515) [1:16-1: 1281 PI-3 HI 0(0/5) 75(3/4) [1:8-1:16] lOO(515) [1:8-1:32] BT CF 20(1/5) [1:20] 75(3/4) [1:10] lOO(515) [I: 10-1:20] EHD CF 20(1/5) [1:5] 25(1/4) [I: lo] 20(1/5) [1:5] CE CF 40(2/5) [I :5-1:20] 25(1/4) [1:20] 80(4/5) [I: 10-1 :40] BVD SN 40(2/5) [1:8-1:16] 25(114) [1:8] 40(2/5) [I: 16-1:32] Q-F CF 40(2/5) [l:lO] lOO(414) [I: 10-1:20] O(Ol5)

aPI-3 = parainfluenza-3, BT = bluetongue, EHD = epizootic hemorrhagic disease, CE = contagious ecthyma, BVD = bovine viral diarrhea, Q-F = Q-fever.

bSN = serum neutralization test, HI = hemagglutination inhibition test, CF = complement fixation test.


Table 4. Summary of disease study from cattle sympatric with desert bighorn sheep in the Peloncillo Mountains, New Mexico, December1985.

% positive (incidence) [titer range]

Testing Pathogenn methodb Granite Peak Gray Mountain Burro Canyon

PI-3 SN lOO(414) [l: 16-1:32] lOO(212) [I: 161 lOO(212) [1:8-1:16] PI-3 HI 100(4/4) [1:8-1:16] lOO(212) [1:8-1:16] lOO(212) [I :8- 1 : 161 BT CF 25(1/4) [1:10] 50(1/2) [I: 101 lOO(212) [1:5-1: 101 EHD CF O(014) O(Ol5) 50(1/2) IBR SN 0 (014) lOO(212) [1:2-1:4] O(Oi2) BVD SN O(014) 50(1/2) [1:8] CJ(012)

"PI-3 = parainfluenza-3, BT = bluetongue, EHD = epizootic hemorrhagic disease, IBR = infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, BVD = bovine viral diarrhea.

b~~ = serum neutralization test, HI = hemagglutination inhibition test, CF = complement fixation test.

DISCUSSION The origin and composition of the founding population precipitated

the ram die-off in the Peloncillo Mountains. Bighorn sheep were transplanted from 2 areas with different clinical histories of disease. Prior to this die-off, pneumonia had not been documented in desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico. In contrast, abnormal pneumonic conditions appear to be ubiquitous in bighorn sheep from western Arizona (Russo 1956, Kelly 1957, Whitham et al. 1982).

The differential mortality; i.e., survival of all ewes from Arizona and mortality in all rams from New Mexico, suggests that the proximal factor precipitating the die-off was that the rams were immunologically naive to pneumonia. The ewes transmitted the pathogen@) to the rams during confinement in the paddock. Ewes could have obtained immunity through previous exposure, as substantiated by old plueral adhesions and fibrin deposits found in 2 ewes that accidentally died during confinement.

Of the 2 rams from New Mexico released directly into the wild subsequent to the initial die-off, the ram that associated with the ewes from Arizona died of pneumonia 42 days post-release. The second ram left the area without associating with Arizona sheep, and inhabits an adjacent mountain range. Finally, the 4 rams from Arizona failed to develop symptoms of pneumonia, confirming immunity in sheep from Arizona.

The rams from New Mexico were seropositive to EHD, BT, PI-3 and CE when released into the paddock. The ewes from Arizona were all negative to BT, serologically positive to EHD, and 50% were positive to CE. These ewes, however, were not tested for exposure to PI-3. Results obtained during 1985 from sheep from Arizona (n = 14) revealed 57% to be seropositive to BT, indicating exposure to BT after their translocation to New Mexico. The origin of BT titers in sheep from Arizona may be attributed to induced response resulting from vaccination, the rams from New Mexico and/or cattle, as the latter were also found to be seropositive to BT.

Early viral involvement leading to bacterial pneumonia cannot be excluded even in light of negative virologic isolates. The inability to isolate viruses could be due to the timing and methodology of sampling rather than the absence of viral pathogens. Because some respiratory viruses are extremely labile and may be destroyed by the host (Parks et al. 1972), bighorn sheep tested during late stages of pneumonia or at necropsy may not reveal pathogens associated with pneumonic conditions. DeForge et al. (unpubl, data) found that viruses could not be isolated during the late stages of pneumonia, although bacterial pathogens were readily cultured.

Of the 3 bacterial pathogens isolated during the die-off of rams, Pasteurella multocida is most commonly implicated in bighorn respiratory diseases (Post 1971, Feuerstein et al. 1980). P. multocida, however, apparently requires viral infections and/or stress mediated immune suppression to cause fatal pneumonia (Onderka and Wishart 1984). Stressors (crowding, inclement weather, and adaptation to new

environments) can act to lower the bighorn's resistance by producing excessive levels of cortisol that suppress the immune system (DeFoige et al. 1982).

In this die-off, the significance of stressors is difficult to assess. Deleterious effects of paddock confinement have been implicated in disease losses in Texas (Hailey et al. 1972), Utah (McCutchen 1977), and California (Blaisdell 1982). Confinement undoubtedly facilitated the transmission of pathogenic agents. The death of 1 of the wild released rams from New Mexico to pneumonia, howevcr, indicates that transmission occurred regardless of confinement.

High lamb mortality attributed to pneumonia has been documented in southern Nevada (Taylor 1976), California (DeForge et al. 1982) and Texas (G. M. Wise et al., Irnrnuno Modulators Lab., Inc., Tex., unpubl. rep. 1987). In southwestern Arizona, the area most pertinent to this die-off, the extent of pneumonia is not well documented. Russo (1956) attributed low lamb survival to pneumonia and reported that lung adhesions were found in all 12 sheep he necropsied. Accumulated sex and age ratio data from the KNWR show a relatively low proportion of yearlings in the population (Ariz. Game and Fish Dep. 1979).

Lamb mortality in the Peloncillo Mountains has occurred under different environmental conditions and at different growth stages. Lambs in 1981 died between 5.0-7.5 months of age. Mortality in subsequent years has occurred before lambs reached 2.5 months. Taylor (1976) believes pneumonic lambs surviving to 6 months develop resistance.

A similar occurrence of high lamb mortality in desert bighorn sheep has been under investigation in the Santa Rosa Mountains, California. This population declined by 50% during the past 7 years due to lack of recruitment. Pathologic evidence indicates pneumonia has been killing lambs, and virologic evidence indicates a combination of PI-3 and BT are primary factors in this fatal pneumonic process. These viruses are evidently predisposing the lungs to colonization by opportunistic bacterial pathogens from the upper respiratory tract. Adult bighorn are apparently infected with PI-3 and BT, but are not necessarily fatally afflicted. The respiratory tract of bighorn lambs, however, seems unable to withstand the secondary bacterial pathogens that follow the viral infection (DeForge et al., unpubl. data). The greatest mortality occurs when lambs are 1-3 months old, suggesting an inability by lambs to build up antibody response after receiving the maternal antibody in the colostrum.

The possibility that genetic and endocrine immune deficiencies in bighorn sheep have resulted from inbreeding due to geographic isolation and reduced gene flow has been discussed by DeForge et al. (1979). Although cross breeding to enhance population vigor is widely prwticed in domestic animal husbandry, seldom is it practiced in the management of wild mammal populations.


The attempt to enhance bighorn sheep population vigor in New Mexico by cross breeding similar geographic races failed. This should not, however, be misconstrued to indicate that mixing different gene pools is an unwise management practice. Our failure demonstrates potential detrimental consequences that may result, and underscores the necessity for intensive medical testing prior to mixing gene pools with different disease histories. Once a history of previous disease exposure has been compiled, a determination can be made on the feasibility of mixing different populations of bighorn sheep to enhance overall vigor.

Active avoidance behavior between bighorn sheep and domestic cows was not observed in the Peloncillo Mountains (Elenowitz 1983), and a high degree of sympatry exists. Therefore, bighorn sheep-cattle disease transmission was a distinct possibility. All of the cows tested (n = 8) were seropositive to PI-3 and BT. The role played by cattle in this fatal pneumonia, however, cannot be assessed with the existing data.

With few exceptions (King and Workman 1984, Dodd and Brady 1986), viable populations of desert bighorn sheep do not occur sym- patrically with cattle. Until conclusive data demonstrate successful coexistence between bighorn and cattle, wildlife management agencies should reconsider transplanting bighorn sheep in areas where a high degree of range overlap could occur. Furthermore, land management agencies should be encouraged to reduce competition in occupied and potential bighorn transplant sites by implementing range management practices designed to shift cattle distribution away from areas of sympatry.

LITERATURE CITED Allen, R. W. 1980. Natural history and debility. Pages 172-185 In

G. Monson and L. Sumner, eds. The desert bighorn. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1979. Bighorn sheep management information. Ariz. Game and Fish Dep., Fed. Aid Wildl. Restor., Proj. W-53-R-29, Perf. Rep. 71pp.

Blaisdell, J. A. 1982. Lava beds wrap-up, what did we learn? Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 26:32-33.

Buechner, H. K. 1960. The bighorn sheep in the United States: its past, present and future. Wildl. Monogr. 4. 174pp.

DeForge, J. R., C. W. Jenner, A. J. Plechner, and G. W. Sudmeier. 1979. Decline of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), the genetic implications. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 23:63-66.

, D. A. Jessup, C. W. Jenner, and J. E. Scott. 1982. Disease investigations into high lamb mortality of desert bighorn in the Santa Rosa Mountains, California. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 26:76-81.

Dodd, N. L., and W. W. Brady. 1986. Cattle grazing influences on vegetation of a sympatric desert bighorn range in Arizona. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 28%-13.

Elenowitz, A. S. 1983. Habitat use and population dynamics of transplanted desert bighorn sheep in the Peloncillo Mountains, New Mexico. M. S. Thesis, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. 158pp.

Feuerstein, R. L., R. L. Schmidt, C. D. Hibler, and W. H. Rutherford. 1980. Bighorn sheep mortality in the Taylor River-Almont Triangle area, 1978-1979: a case study. Colo. Div. Wildl. Rep. 48. 1 9 ~ ~ .

Hailey, T . L. , R. G. Marburger, R. M. Robinson, and K. A. Clark. 1972. Disease losses in desert bighorn sheep, Black Gap area. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 16:79-83.

Kelly, W. E. 1957. Status of bighorn sheep in Arizona. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 15-7.

King, M. M., and G. M. Workman. 1984. Cattle grazing in desert bighorn habitat. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 28:18-22.

McCutchen, H. E. 1977. The Zion bighorn restoration project, 1976. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 21:9-11.

Onderka, D. K. , and W. D. Wishart. 1984. A major bighorn sheep die-off from pneumonia in southern Alberta. Bien. Symposium North. Wild Sheep and Goat Counc. 4:356-363.

Parks, J., G. Post, T. Thorne, and P. Nash. 1972. Parainfluenza-3 virus infection in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 161:669-672.

Pillmore, R. E. 1961. Study of lung nematodes of bighorn sheep: study of lungworm infection trends in sheep. Colo. Dep. Game and Fish, Fed. Aid Fish and Wildl. Restor., Proj. W-95-R, Quart. Frog. Rep.

Post, G. 1971. The pneumonia complex in bighorn sheep. North Am. Wild Sheep Conf. Transactions 1:98-102.

Russo, J. P. 1956. The desert bighorn in Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Dep. Wildl. Bull. 1. 153pp.

Sandoval, A. V. 1982. Evaluation of the Peloncillo and Alamo Hueco Mountains, New Mexico as potential desert bighorn habitat. New Mexico Dep. Game and Fish, Santa Fe. 116pp.

Spraker, T. R., and C. P. Hibler. 1982. Summer lamb mortality of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 21:ll-12.

Taylor, R. E. L. 1976. Mortality of Nevada bighorn sheep from pneumonia. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 20:51-52.

Wishart, W. D., J. Jorgenson, and M. Hiltson. 1980. A minor die-off of bighorns from pneumonia in southern Alberta (1978). Bienn. Symposium North. Wild Sheep and Goat Counc. 2:229-245.

Witham, J. H., R. R. Remington, and E. L. Smith. 1982. Desert bighorn summer mortality in southwestern Arizona, 1979. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 26:44-46.


STATUS REPORTS

DESERT BIGHORN 'COUNCIL 1987 TRANSACTIONS -23-

STATUS OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN ARIZONA, 1986

Raymond M. Lee Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, AZ 85023

CURRENT STATUS Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis spp.) populations in

Arizona are slowly increasing and the population is estimated to be 3,750. During the 1986 winter surveys, 2,348 bighorn sheep were observed (670 rams, 1,080 ewes, 377 lambs, and 238 yearlings). These survey results yield ratios of 61 rams: 100 ewes: 35 lambs: 22 yearlings (Fig. 1).

Rocky Mountain bighorn (0. c. canadensis) populations are ex- panding in the San Francisco River drainage. During winter surveys, 103 bighorn sheep were observed (32 rams, 43 ewes, 29 lambs, and 31 yearlings). These survey results produce ratios of 74 rams: 100 ewes: 67 lambs: 72 yearlings.

LEGEND

- RAMS -- LAMBS

0 - 78 80 82 84 88

YEAR

Fig. 1. Statewide bighorn sheepsurvey data in Arizona, 1977-1986.

HUNTING Bighorn sheep permits remain the most sought after hunting per-

mits in the state. The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) received 2,699 applications (2,015 residents and 684 non-residents, representing 36 states) for the 63 regular season permits. While there were 44 applicants for each permit, the number of applicants for bighorn sheep represents < 3% of the total big game hunters in the state.

Two special permits were issued to raise funds for sheep management. Of the 65 permittees, 64 hunted, harvesting 56 rams for Arizona's record harvest (Table 1). This was the third consecutive year that the harvest record has been broken. Hunter success was 88%. While down somewhat from the 93% figures of the last 2 years, the 5-year average remains >go%.

Table 1. Summary of Arizona bighorn sheep harvest, 1953-86.

Permits Hunters Year authorized afield harvest % success

' Two hunts in 1953. Two special permits included.


TRANSPLANTING RESEARCH Arizona's history of transplanting bighorn sheep dates back to Bighorn sheep research in Arizona is now oriented towards man-

1955 when Arizona and Texas entered into an ambitious program to agement. This is primarily due to the AGFD Research Branch's con- capture 50 bighorn sheep in the Kofa Game Refuge. One-half of these clusion that most suitable bighorn sheep research has been done or is animals were to be released at the Black Gap Wildlife Management currently underway. The Game Management and Field Operations Area in west Texas with the remainder being released within an enclo- groups have been active in determining the efficiency of helicopter sure at Aravaipa Canyon. This project met with limited success; 22 survey techniques and evaluating future transplant sites. animals were successfully released; there were 15 mortalities during the operation.

Techniques have improved since these first efforts. In 1986, using drop-nets and net-guns fired from helicopters, 89 bighorn sheep were successfully released. In 1986, Arizona captured its 600th bighorn sheep, the 500th sheep was successfully released, and the 200th radio- collar was attached to a sheep (Table 3).

Since 1980, a mean of 85 sheep have been transplanted with an average of only 2 mortalities annually. Similar transplant efforts are planned for 1987 and 1988, with sheep going to Colorado and Texas.

Table 3 . Arizona desert bighorn sheep transplant history, 1950-86.

Year Captured

1950-60 39 1960-70 11 1970-80 42 1981 101 1982 2 1 1983 86 1984 114 1985 9 1 1986 95

Released

19 3

38 92 20 85

106 88 89

Mortalities Radio

collared


STATUS OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP IN COLORADO, 1986

Van K. Graham Colorado Division of Wildlife 7 1 1 Independent Avenue Grand Junction, CO 81505

Colorado received 35 desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) from Lake Mead, Nevada, on 23 July 1986. These sheep were transplanted to an approved release site along the Dolores River, Colorado (Bureau of Land Management [BLM], unpubl. rep., Durango, Colo., 1985) (Fig. 1). The transplanted herd contained 23 ewes, 5 lambs, and 7 rams. Five of the sheep were fitted with radio transmitters to study movements, assess habitat preferences, and monitor mortality. Two sheep moved approximately 56 krn after the release, but returned to the vicinity of the release site within several months. The herd will be supplemented during the summer of 1987 with 25 sheep from Arizona.

scale 2.54 cm : 40 km

With the addition of the Dolores herd, Colorado has 3 desert bighorn sheep populations. The other 2 introduced herds are located near Grand Junction, Colorado (Fig. 1) (Gray 1986). The Colorado National Monument (CNM) herd was originally established in November 1979 and is growing and reproducing well. Reproduction in 1985 and 1986, resulted in 91 lambs/100 ewes (n = 25) and 100 1ambsllOO ewes (n = 8), respectively. Population estimates (determined through aerial census and simple population modeling using reproduction and mortality estimates) for this herd are 70-85 sheep.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has continued to monitor radio-collared sheep in all 3 transplant locations. Five new radio-collars were placed on sheep in the CNM herd during September 1986. A Coda net gun (Coda Enterprises Inc., Mesa, Ariz.) and a Lama and Bell-47 helicopter with a Soloy conversion were used to capture the sheep.

One ewe was stressed after capture. Her rectal temperature was 41.5 C. The animal was released immediately after fitting her with a radio-collar. All 5 of the captured sheep were alive and in good condition in April 1987.

The first case of sinusitis in desert bighorn sheep was documented in Colorado in fall 1986. A mature radio-collared ewe from one of the original transplants died west of CNM. Death was attributed to chronic sinusitis.

The Dominguez Canyon population contains 50 sheep. Four lambs were observed last year indicating that reproduction is occurring. Sheep from the 1985 transplant appear to be extending their range to the south and are increasing the overall range of this herd. Movements of sheep, reproductive success, and mortality in this herd are being monitored through ground surveys and radio-tracking.

During fall 1986, Colorado considered establishing its first bighorn sheep hunting season for the CNM herd for fall 1987. This season was discussed among CDOW personnel and with the BLM. Con- troversy arose concerning the recommended season and discussions centered on the availability of suitable numbers of mature rams for harvest. The season will be delayed for 2 1 year. During this time additional biological data will be gathered. If approved by the Colorado Wildlife Commission, the CDOW will authorize a desert bighorn sheep season during fall 1988. Season dates, length of season, type of licenses, method(s) of take, number of licenses, and legal ram qualifications still need to be decided.

The CDOW long-range desert bighorn sheep management objective is to increase the populations in each of the existing herds to maximum sustainable levels. Natural expansion into suitable available . habitats will be encouraged and transplants will remain a viable part of our management plans. Annual hunting seasons will be authorized when populations reach suitable levels.

The CDOW is planning to introduce desert bighorn sheep into the Roubideau Canyon area south of the Dominguez Canyon desert bighorn sheep herd (Fig. 1). This transplant is contingent on the approval of the project by the BLM.

L I T E W U R E CITED Gray, J . 1986. Status of bighorn sheep in Colorado, 1985. Desert

Bighorn Counc. Trans. 30:22.

Figure 1. Locations of transplanted (T) desert bighorn sheep and proposed release sites (P) in western Colorado, 1986.


STATUS OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP IN NEVADA, 1986

Daniel E. Delaney Nevada Department of Wildlife Las Vegas, NV 89158

POPULATION STATUS AND TREND Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) in Nevada are

monitored annually between September and November. Helicopter surveys have been the primary method for determining the population status and trend of desert bighorn sheep in Nevada since 1969.

Helicopter surveys were conducted on 19 mountain ranges between 15 September and 25 October 1986. Survey crews observed 1,729 bighorn sheep (53 rams1100 ewes, 32 lambdl00 ewes) (Table 1) that represented the third highest count obtained. The 1986 ratio of 32 lambs/100 ewes equalled the long-term average recruitment in Nevada, while the ram ratio was slightly below the long-term average for the second consecutive year (Table 1). Nevada's bighorn sheep population is estimated to be 5,500 sheep.

Desert bighorn sheep inhabit 42 mountain ranges within the state. Herds transplanted into 14 ranges since 1978 are stable or increasing, while the 28 established bighorn populations are stable.

HUNTING AND HARVEST Desert bighorn sheep have been legally hunted in Nevada since

1952. Between 1952 and 1970 the number of permits issued in a given year fluctuated, but hunter success remainedrelatively low (X = 31%). Beginning in 1970, permit allocations for bighorn sheep were derived from helicopter survey data. As a result of more consistent and increased data gathering, permit allocations since 1970 have more accurately reflected individual population trends, and have resulted in higher hunter success (f = 67%).

For the 1986 desert bighorn sheep hunt, 131 permits (118 resident, 12 nonresident and 1 special permit) were available. Interest in hunting desert bighorn sheep remained high as indicated by the record number of applicants (2,529) received for the 1986 season. Hunters harvested 107 rams from 20 management areas (2 hunter success = 82%). This

Table 2 . Summary of desert bighorn sheep legally harvested in Nevada, 1952-86.

Hunter success

Year Permits Harvest (%)

15 30.0 15 25.0 11 18.3

CLOSED SEASON 26 65.0 25 41.7 30 37.5 36 45 .O 27 33.8 32 32.0 33 27.5 28 35.0 9 25.7

24 20.9 38 26.2 31 36.5 32 26.7 31 28.2 18 30.0 12 25.0 2 1 38.9 28 51.9 22 40.7 29 53.7 54 75 .o 5 8 71.6 55 67.9 59 72.8 66 76.7 65 72.2 58 64.4 94 84.7 86 71.1

110 85.9 107 81.6

year's season resulted in both the second highest number of rams harvested and the second highest hunter success rate since 1952 (Table -I\ " I .

The 1986 season was the first time that any ram was legal for harvest in Nevada. In 1986, Nevada began evaluating the effects of any ram regulation in 9 management areas. These 9 areas will be under an any ram regulation for a 2 year trial period (1986-1987). The regulation will be reviewed and recommendations will be presented to the Board of Wildlife Commissioners in 1988.

Table 1. Summary of fall helicopter surveys for desert bighorn sheep in Nevada, 1977-86.

No. sheep Year Hr Observationihr observed Ewes Lambs Rams Ram:ewe:lamb


TRAPPING AND TRANSPLANT The reintroduction of desert bighorn sheep into historically oc-

cupied habitats continues to be a priority program within the Nevada Department of Wildlife. During 1986, trapping operations were conducted on 3 mountain ranges.

In January 1986, bighorn sheep on Lone Mountain were trapped using linear-drive net techniques; 31 bighorn sheep were captured (3 rams, 26 ewes, and 2 lambs). Captured bighorn sheep were reintroduced into the Excelsior and Wassuk ranges.

Trapping operations conducted during the summer of 1986 in the River and Black mountains with drop net techniques, resulted in the capture of 45 (22 rams, 16 ewes, and 7 lambs) and 1 12 (24 rams, 77 ewes, and 11 lambs) bighorns, respectively. These bighorn sheep were used for reintroductions into the Desatoya, Clan Apine, Egan, Pahroc, Silverpeak, and Stillwater ranges. Thirty-five bighorn sheep from the Black Mountains were transplanted into Dolores River Can- yon in southwest Colorado. ~ e v a d a ' s t r a ~ ~ i n ~ and transplant program since 1968 (Table 3) have transplanted 651 bighorn sheep; 550 individuals within Nevada and 101 to Utah, Texas, and Colorado.

Table 3 . Summary of Desert Bighorn Sheep Trarisplants in Nevada, 1968-86.

No. No. Released at Years captured transplanted capture site Mortalities

1968-79 191 85 102 4 1980 39 38 1 1981 21 20 1 1982 88 69 19" 1983 119 88 30 1 1984 147 114 32 1 1985 64 50 11 3 1986 235 187 45 3 Totals 904 65 1 222 3 1

"Sixteen of 19 mortalities in 1982 resulted from a truck fire.

HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Water is the most limiting factor for desert bighorn sheep distribu-

tion in southern Nevada. Many ranges lack sufficient water to allow for wide distribution of bighorn sheep. To improve bighorn habitats and allow for extended seasons of use, water development has been an integral part of the desert bighorn sheep management program in Nevada.

Between June 1986 and April 1986, 7 water development projects were completed in 3 mountain ranges. Three developments were constructed in the North Hiko Range, 1 development in the South Hiko Range, and 3 developments in the Muddy Mountains. The combined storage capacity of these 7 developments is 90,850 L. Funding for these projects was provided by the Nevada Department of Wildlife, U. S. Bureau of Land Management, North American Wild Sheep Foundation, Bighorn's Unlimited, and the Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn.


STATUS OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN NEW MEXICO, 1986

Amy S. Elenowitz New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Villagra Building-State Capitol, Santa Fe, NM 87503

Doug Humphreys New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Villagra Building-State Capitol, Santa Fe, NM 87503

The desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) is classified as a state-endangered species in New Mexico. In 1987, 142 free-ranging bighorn were located in 4 areas of the state (Table 1). The Hatchet Mountains contain the only increasing population. The status of desert sheep in the state has prompted changes in policy by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF), as reflected in new management plans for the San Andres Mountains and the NMDGF Redrock propagating facility.

POPULATION STATUS Alamo Hueco Transplant

The Alamo Hueco transplant was New Mexico's third reintroduction of bighorn sheep into uninhabited historic range. It was a cooperative effort between the NMDGF, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pacific Western Land Company, and the Hurt Cattle Company. The Alamo Huecos was selected as a transplant site because of habitat suitability, minimal human disturbance, and improbability of invasion by exotic ungulates (A. V. Sandoval, Evaluation of the Peloncillo and Alamo Hueco Mountains, New Mexico as potential desert bighorn habitat, unpubl. rep., NMDGF, 1982).

Bighorn were captured on 7 October 1986 from the Redrock propagating facility using drive-net and net-gun techniques. Bighorn sheep were placed in canvas panniers and transported to a centralized proces- sing station where each animal was aged, radio-collared, and injected with ivermectin, atropine sulfate, penicillin, and clostridial bacteria (2 handling time = 20 min.). One ewe captured by net-gun died of undetermined causes.

Table 1 . Status of desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico, May 1987.

New Mexico Mexico

Fig. 1 . Post-release movements of desert bighorn sheep transplanted in the Alamo Hueco Mountains, New Mexico, October 1986.

Area Population history Na Trend

Hatchet Mountains Indigenous supplemented 1979 P R ~ , 1982 DR

Peloncillo Mountains Transplanted 1981 PR, 1982DR

68 Increasing

25 Stable

San Andres Mountains Indigenous 25 Decreasing

Alamo Hueco Mountains Transplanted 1986 DR

Red rock Propagating Facility Supplemented 1972,1973,1975

4 1 Increasing

"Numbers based on spring ground surveys conducted, 1986-87 b~~ = paddock release, DR = direct release.


Twenty-one sheep (10 ewes, 10 rams, and 1 lamb) were transported in 2 enclosed stock trailers and released the following morning in Lyle Canyon (Fig. 1). Monthly aerial monitoring flights were initiated after the release. Ground monitoring has been conducted since January 1987.

Ten lambs were born between January-February 1987; 5 died in February at 2 days to 2 months of age. Causes of death could not be determined.

Five rams moved 23 km north of the release site to the Big Hatchet Mountains (Fig. 1) where 1 was killed by a mountain lion (Felis concolor). The mortality signal on another ram was detected 13 km south of the release site at a ranch house in the Republic of Mexico; we suspect the ram was poached. As of May 1987, rams from Alamo Hueco are moving between both mountain ranges and are associating with bighorn sheep in the Big Hatchet Mountains.

Ewe-lamb groups have been relatively sedentary for the first 6 months post-release and have established 2 use areas 2 km apart. The sedentary nature of ewes during late pregnancy and post-lambing supports Dodd's (1983) recommendation that lambing ground fidelity be reinforced by transplanting gravid ewes. It was not until April 1987 that a ewe-lamb group moved to the Big Hatchet Mountains.

Exploratory behavior in transplanted desert bighorn (McQuivey and Pullman 1980, Elenowitz 1983, Remington and deVos 1985) and intermountain movements by established populations (Witham and Smith 1979, Cochran and Smith 1983) is well documented. Although intermountain movements subject sheep to potential mortality, in the long run they insure that alternate habitat could be used in the event of localized drought or habitat alteration. Intermountain movements also insure necessary genetic exchange in small populations (Krausman and Leopold 1986). Ewes from Alamo Hueco should show fidelity to lambing grounds in their new environment and the interchange of bighorn sheep from the Big Hatchet and Alamo Hueco mountains should enhance survival.

Peloncillo Mountains Transplant The Peloncillo Mountain population, comprised of bighorn sheep

from the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR), Arizona, was estblished in 1981 with a paddock release, followed in 1982 by several supplemental releases. High lamb mortality attributed to fibrinopurulent bronchopneumonia has suppressed population growth since the initial release (Elenowitz 1983). The 1987 population (N = 25) is composed of 3 herds: Owl Canyon, Gray Peak, and Granite Peak.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), in November 1986, transplanted 3 1 KNWR sheep to the Arizona side of the Pelon- cillo Mountains at Orange Butte and Ward Canyon (R.M. Lee, AGFD, pers. cornrnun.). The transplant concerned the NMDGF because of disease transmission between bighorn sheep from Arizona and New Mexico. This was documented in 1981 when a mixed transplant in the central Peloncillo Mountains resulted in the death of all 11 New Mexico rams; the die-off was attributed to the lack of immunity to the pneumonic pathogens carried by ewes from Arizona. Subsequent releases of bighorn sheep from Arizona were successful and pneumonia only affected lambs (Elenowitz 1983).

To detect movement and the potential transmission of pneumonia to the Redrock population (located 50 krn northeast of the Peloncillo Mountains), NMDGF has been aerially monitoring bighorn sheep from Arizona each month since December 1986. Although potential movement comdors between the northern Peloncillo and Redrock are poor, the unpredictable movements of transplanted sheep dictate that necessary precautions be taken. To date, no sheep have moved towards Redrock. Most of the transplanted bighorn sheep are concentrated in the vicinity of the release sites. Two sheep moved 25 km south to Steins Mountain, just north of Interstate 10 in New Mexico. These sheep are approximately 15 km north of the bighorn sheep from New Mexico located at Granite Peak.

Hatchet Mountains Transplant The decline of bighorn sheep in the Big Hatchet Mountains in the

early 1950s was summarized by Watts (1979). The Big Hatchet population has responded positively to transplant efforts by the NMDGF. Supplemental transplants of 30 bighorn sheep from Redrock in 1979 and 1982 have increased the population from 12 in 1979 (Watts 1979) to 68 in 1986 (Sandoval 1986).

Transplanted bighorn sheep from the direct release in 1982 have established a resident population in the Little Hatchet Mountains. Interchange between the Big and Little Hatchet mountains is common. The relatively gentle topography in the Little Hatchets resembles the Redrock propagating facility where sheep were raised.

San Andres Mountains Transplant As a result of a psoroptic scabies (Psoroptes ovis) epizootic in

1979, the San Andres population declined from 200 to 75 bighorn sheep within a year (Sandoval 1980). As of May 1987, the population contained 25 individuals. Scabies continues to kill sheep, acting as a predisposing and proximal factor. Mountain lion predation and low lamb survival further compound the problem (P. A. Hoban, Annual narrative report for the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge - 1986, unpubl, rep., U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Las Cruces, N.M. 1986).

The San Andres Mountains contain the most suitable and largest contiguous habibtat for desert bighorn in New Mexico. This range is considered critical to the recovery of sheep in the state. Salvaging the San Andres desert sheep population thus became one of the greatest challenges facing the NMDGF and its cooperators, and the population has been the most intensively managed in the state.

The control of mountain lions and treatment of scabies became the 2 primary management tools. Between 1980 and 1984, 41 lions were removed (W. Evans, Desert bighorn survival and mortality parameters in the San Andres Mountains, New Mexico, 1980-85, unpubl. rep., NMDGF, 1986) before control was terminated in 1984. For 6 years after the initial salvage operation in 1979, sheep were captured, radio-collared, sampled for mites, and treated with ivermectin. During the first 4 years, an attempt was made to eradicate mites by treating every animal. In 1984-85 sheep were selectively treated to test the hypothesis that desert sheep could co-exist with the mite. In 1986 the hypothesis was rejected because the decline had not abated.

FUTURE MANAGEMENT PLANS The declining status of the San Andres bighorn led to the design

of a new recovery plan by the NMDGF, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and White Sands Missile Range. The goal is to repopulate all suitable habitat in the San Andres with desert sheep and to minimize the need for intensive management schemes in the future. Tentative actions are to remove the entire population from the mountain and eliminate mites in captivity, then return the population to the mountain when both are determined to be mite-free, and supplement the population with bighorn sheep from Redrock until viable status is achieved (W. Haussamen, Mexican bighorn sheep recovery and management plan for the San Andres Mountains, New Mexico, unpubl. rep., NMDGF, 1987).


Table 2. Transfem'n genotypes of desert bighorn sheep from the San Andres Mountains and Redrock, New Mexico, populations sampled in 1982 and 1985.

Transferrin genotype

Sample Labn year Population N A A AB BB P / A ~

CFG 1982 SAC 5 1 1 3 0.30 UNM 1982 S A 16 4 8 4 0.50 UNM 1985 S A 18 3 10 5 0.44 CFG 1985 S A 14 2 9 3 0.46 CFG 1982 RR 10 3 7 0.30 CFG 1985 RR 16 4 10 2 0.56 UNM 1985 RR 17 4 10 3 0.53

'CFG = California Fish and Game, UNM = Univ. New Mexico. b~requency of the "A" allele. "SA = San Andres, RR = Redrock.

For many years, San Andres bighorn were considered a distinct phylogenetic population as a result of their geographic isolation. How- ever, recent testing indicated that bighorn sheep in the San Andres Mountains and the Redrock facility have similar disease exposure (Sandoval 1986) and similar genotypes based on allele frequencies at the transfemn locus (x" 11.34,2df, P > 0.051 (Table 2). Transfemn. a polymorphic protein, is a standard genetic marker in wild and domestic sheep (Bunch et al. 1981). The genetic similarity is not unexpected because 13 of the 18 sheep that founded the Redrock herd were derived from the San Andres Mountains. The remainder of the animals were obtained from Sonora, Mexico.

Because these 2 populations share similar genetic and disease histories there is no biological argument against supplemental transplants. This also means that extraordinary measures to retain the remnant San Andres population are not justified (W. Haussarnen 1987).

To accomplish the goal of repopulating suitable bighorn habitat in the San Andres, the Redrock propagating facility will be doubled in size to an anticipated 540 ha by fall 1987. In the present facility, the threshold population is approximately 60, above which disease outbreaks occur. Because of the relatively few animals that could be produced and maintained at Redrock, transplants are limited to 6 months to 3 years. Expansion will accelerate production and enable the NMDGF to begin to make annual transplants into the San Andres and other historic ranges throughout the state.

LITERATURE CITED Bunch, T. D., P. Webb, J. J. Spillett. 1981. Transferrins of desert

bighorn in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 255-6.

Cochran, M. H. and E. L. Smith. 1983. Intermountain movements by a desert bighorn ram in western Arizona. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 27:l-2.

Dodd, N. L. 1983. Ideas and recommendations for maximizing desert bighorn transplant efforts. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 27: 12-16.

Elenowitz, A. S. 1983. Habitat use and population dynamics of transplanted desert bighorn sheep in the Peloncillo Mountains, New Mexico. M.S. Thesis, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. 158pp.

Krausman, P. R. and B. D. Leopold. 1986. The impoflance of small populations of desert bighorn sheep. Trans. North Am. Wildl, and Nat. Res. Conf. 5152-61.

McQuivey, R. P. and D. Pulliam. 1980. Preliminary results of a wild- release bighorn sheep transplant in Nevada. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 24:57-61.

Remington, R. and J. C. deVos, Jr. 1985. Arizona's f i s t desert bighorn transplant into natural population. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 29:20-23.

Sandoval, A. V. 1980. Management of a psoroptic'scabies epizootic in bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) in New Mexico. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 24:21-28.

. 1986. Bighorn sheep research. New Mexico Dep. Game and Fish, Fed. Aid Wildl. Restor., Proj. W-127-R-1, Perf. Rep. 7pp.

Watts, T. J. 1979. Detrimental movement patterns in a remnant population of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana). M.S. Thesis, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. 185pp.

Witham, 3. H., and E. L. Smith. 1979. Desert bighorn movements in a southwestern Arizona mountain complex. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 23:20-24.


STATUS OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN UTAH, 1986

James G. Guymon Utah Division of Wildlife Resouces Cedar City, UT 84720

James F. Karpowitz Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Price, UT 84501

Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) have been native to Utah since prehistoric times. Rock writings of early Indian tribes clearly depict the bighorn as 1 of the most common animals found on picto- graph panels in southern portions of the state. Early pioneers recorded sightings of bighorns in their journals as they penetrated the interior of what is now Utah.

It was not until the late 1960s that the bighorn sheep were recog- nized as a valuable species in Utah. Relict populations existed in the canyons and mesas along the Colorado River and its tributaries but the statewide distribution of bighorn sheep was not known. In the spring of 1965 a study was initiated to determine the distribution of bighorn sheep in southeastern Utah.

In 1973, a cooperative project was undertaken by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR), Nevada Department of Game and Fish, and the National Park Service to reintroduce bighorn sheep into Zion National Park. Twelve desert bighorns were captured at Boulder Beach, Nevada, and released into a 32.4 ha holding enclosure. In December 1975, a transplant program was initiated by the Utah DWR to capture sheep from established populations and release them into historical habitat. The first reintroduction was made into the Escalante Wilderness Area. This introduction program has continued on an annual basis and is now in its twelfth year. Funding for this reintroduction was provided from donated funds and from an annual trophy ram permit issued to the highest bidder.

Bighorn sheep populations are now being managed in 13 different geographic areas in Utah. Four of these populations are native and 9 are transplants (Table 1).

Table I . Desert bighorn management units in Utah, 1986.

Area Status

North San Juan : Established native population. South San Juan Established native population. Potash Established native population. Canyonlands National Park Established native population, plus transplant". Zion National Park Transplanted in 1973. Success uncertain. Transplant completed in 1978. Westwater Transplant completed in 1978. Successful. San Rafael Swell Transplant completed in 1981. Successful. Kaiparowits Plateau Transplant completed in 1982 and supplemented in 1986. Successful. San Rafael Reef Transplanted in 1983. Successful. Capitol Reef National Park Transplant completed in 1985. Little Rockies Transplanted in 1985. Success uncertain. Arches Transplanted in 1985. Success uncertain.

'All transplants were made into historic habitat.


Table 2. Desert bighorn sheep observed during aerial surveys in Utah, 1986.

Unit Lambs/100 Rams1100

Rams Ewes Lambs Total ewes ewes

North San Juan South San Juan San Rafael Island-in-the-Sky Potash Needles Maze Escalante

aNot enough sheep census to evaluate lamb crop.

POPULATION TRENDS Aerial trend counts have been conducted for desert bighorn sheep

in Utah since 1969. These data are used to determine the status of bighorn sheep in Utah (Table 2).

A poor lamb crop was observed on the South San Juan Unit for the second year in a row (Table 2). No lambs were observed with the 18 ewes located on the North San Juan Unit. Lamb crops in the Island-in-the-Sky and Potash units were also down from 1985. Sheep populations in Canyonlands National Park appear to be in good shape except for the Needles District where only 1 lamb was observed with 11 ewes. The Island-in-the-Sky herd appeared stable (Table 2) despite the removal of 43 sheep from the Island for a transplant proposed for January 1987.

The Escalante herd is doing well although fewer sheep were observed during a helicopter census. Some of the sheep that were transplanted in Capitol Reef are mixing with the Escalante herd.

The status of the Kaiparowits herd is not clear. Due to bad weather very few animals were found during the 1986 aerial census. However, during the summer months, sheep are seen regularly along the shores of Lake Powell from Warm Creek Bay to the Rock Creek area (original transplant site). Although this population is scattered, it appears to be stable.

HUNTING A limited number of trophy ram permits have been issued in Utah

since 1967. A trophy ram was defined as a ram 2 7-years-old or with a minimum Boone and Crockett score of 144 points. Beginning with the 1985 season any ram was legal. The reason for the change was to eliminate the question of legality on borderline rams (5 to 7-years- old). Due to the conservative number of permits issued and because of the trophy status of bighorn sheep, the change should not be detrimental to the bighorn sheep population in the state. All successful permit holders are required to take a hunter orientation course to aid in identifying trophy rams. Since 1967, Utah has sold 241 trophy ram permits. One hundred and seven desert bighorn sheep have been legally harvested (44% hunter success).

Since 1980, the Utah Board of Big Game Control has authorized the sale of 1 trophy ram permit to the highest bidder in addition to the regular ram permits. The minimum bid was set at $20,000. The bid price has ranged from $20,000 to $33,000. Money generated has been used for research and to transplant desert bighorn sheep.

TRANSPLANTS Over 200 desert bighorn sheep have been relocated into 9 different

areas of historic habitat in southern Utah since 1973. Three sheep were shipped to Texas to assist in their captive breeding program. Four sheep were donated to the Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City. Most transplants have been successful.

Two things have enhanced Utah's transplant program: the trophy permit and the cooperative agreement signed in 1980 between DWR and the National Park Service. This agreement has allowed a trapping operation to be carried out in Canyonlands National Park. Removal of select sheep from within the park boundaries has provided Utah with a reservoir to draw from for reintroduction efforts.

CAPTURE METHODS In 1986 Utah purchased a net-gun for sheep capture programs.

The net-gun is cost-effective and is the method by which most bighorn sheep are captured. The cost/animal captured has dropped significantly from $1,000 to approximately $150; animal safety and the ease of handling has also improved.


FERAL BURRO REPORT, 1986

Steven D. Kovach Natural Resources Management Branch Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command San Bruno, CA 94066-0720

This paper is a review of feral burro (Equus asinus) management by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), and the U. S. Navy. Free-roaming feral burros do not occur in New Mexico but control programs were necessary in Nevada, Arizona. and California.

NEVADA During 1986 feral burros have expanded their range. Feral burros

are using water guzzlers installed for desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) in the Marietta area; a capture effort is planned for summer 1987.

Roundups of burros during 1986 on the Winnemucca District resulted in the capture of 1,731 feral horses (E. caballus) and 50 feral burros. This capture effort opens the West Humboldt Range for a reintroduction of bighorn sheep in 1988. An additional 1,300 feral horses were removed from the Calico Mountains and the Fox Moun- tains, bringing these areas down to management objective levels. The Calico Mountains are scheduled for a reintroduction of CaIifornia bighorn sheep ( 0 . c. californiana) in 1989.

ARIZONA Last year the BLM captured 635 feral burros; 85 more than the

goal. The goal for 1987 is to remove 550 burros. These capture efforts will concentrate in the Black Mountains. Some burros will also be removed from the Yuma and Arizona Strip areas.

The BLM continues to refine population estimates. Using various data gathering techniques (all include the Peterson estimate) the overall statewide population is estimated to be 3,700 feral burros; although this is an increase of 1,100 from the 1986 estimate, the change is viewed more as a refinement of data analysis and field techniques than an actual increase in feral burro numbers. The largest population of feral burros inhabits the Black Mountains. The current population within the Black Mountains is estimated at 1,100 head. The proposed herd management level is 400 head.

The management goals for the statewide population have been revised upward by 100 for a total of 1,600 burros. The BLM currently has no set target date for reaching their statewide management level. The last 2 herd management plans are being worked on; however, 1 of these may be delayed r l year to coordinate with other resource management plans being prepared for the same area. The BLM does not expect any budget cuts in their 1988 horse and burro program.

CAL.ZF0RNZA The BLM captured 417 feral burros in 1986; 167 more than ex-

pected. This year's goal is 500; 187 have been captured to date. The California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) was censused during the summer of 1986. This census provided data on the remaining numbers and distributions of feral burros within the CDCA, which is being used to direct the 1987 capture efforts. With only minor localized exceptions, the BLM hopes to be at its management levels by the end of this year. The CDCA management level is 860; the Susanville area management level is 93. Five of the 6 herd management plans for the CDCA have been completed; the last is scheduled for completion in 1987 or 1988. The BLM does not expect to receive budget cuts in its wild horse and burro program in 1988. Although another 250 feral burros are scheduled for capture next year, the majority of the effort will be directed towards the capture of feral horses.

Death Valley National Monument has completed its 3-year live capture effort. During the capture efforts 5,789 feral burros, 90 feral horses, and 5 mules were captured. From July 1986 to June 1987 the Fund For Animals (FFA) has live captured stragglers. Fund For Ani- mals hired animal capture experts from New Zealand and have net- gunned 215 feral burros. Starting July 1987, and barring legal action by FFA, the NPS will start the direct reduction phase of the removal effort as outlined in the environmental impact statement. The NPS has not conducted a census since March 1986 and has no idea of the current number of remaining feral burros or feral horses.

During summer 1985 the NPS captured 5 feral burros using a panel trap in Joshua Tree National Monument. No capture efforts were made last year. Capture efforts are scheduled for summer 1987. National Park Service personnel have observed 2 2 5 feral burros moving into the monument from the Coachella Valley area during winter. There are no resident feral burros within the monument. Until the external sources of feral burros become exhausted, the NPS foresees capturing 3 6 feral burros/year for the next 10 to 20 years.

The Navy is continuing its maintenance level live capture efforts following the large-scale removals that ended in 1984. Another 110 feral burros and 450 feral horses were captured in 1987. The majority of feral burros captured were in the vicinity of the Eagle Crag Moun- tains and near Death Valley National Monument. Feral horses are being removed from the vicinity of the Argus Mountains, site of a 1986 California Department of Fish and Game bighorn reintroduction. Navy personnel estimate the feral burro population at 300 head and the feral horse population at 1,000-1,500 head.

The feral burro population on the Army's Fort Irwin Desert Train- ing Center (south of Death Valley National Monument and adjacent to China Lake) is estimated at 50-100 head. The Army still has no plans to remove any of these animals. Local Navy personnel received permission to go onto the Desert Training Center to capture what feral burros they could; the effort resulted in the capture of 49 feral burros.

The California Department of Fish and Game has reports of feral burros occupying the Avowat Mountains. These animals came from the Desert Training Center.


COMMENTS


DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP HUNTING REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING HARVEST QUOTAS

Charles K. Winkler Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744

Buechner (1960) and others (Boone and Crockett Club 1975, Mon- son 1980) have described the decline of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni, 0 . c. mexicana, 0. c. cremnobates, and 0. c. weemsi) throughout much of its historic range. As recently as 1974 sport hunting for desert bighorn sheep was permitted in 3 states (Boone and Crockett Club 1975, Kelly 1980) and Mexico (Boone and Crockett Club 1975). Desert bighorn sheep populations are stable or increasing in many parts of their historic range and most states allow or are

considering regulated hunting of these populations. This paper reviews existing and contemplated sport hunting regulations and the rationale used to determine harvest quotes.

I acknowledge the assistance of R. M. Lee, V. C. Bleich, V. K. Graham, A. M. Guerrero, D. E. Delaney, A. V. Sandoval, and J. G. Guymon in the preparation of this paper.

METHODS Representatives of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New

Mexico, and Utah wildlife agencies and the Mexican Wildlife Service discussed existing or contemplated desert bighorn hunting regulations within their jurisdictions. Specific aspects discussed were: (1) season dates, (2) the presence or lack of several hunting periods within a broad season framework, (3) method of allocating hunting permits, (4) cost of permits, (5) legal weapons, (6) guide requirements, (7) use of horses andlor mules, (8) other legal or prohibited methods, (9) legal sheep specifications, and (10) the methodology for determining harvest quotas.

DISCUSSION Of 7 North American states and 1 country (Mexico) with desert

bighorn sheep, 4 states and Mexico permit regulated sport hunting of this species (Table 1). Colorado and Texas are considering a harvest in 1988. In New Mexico desert bighorn sheep are an endangered species and not hunted; however, Rocky Mountain bighorns (0. c. canadensis) are legal game.

Table 1 . Summary of desert bighorn sheep hunting regulations in 6 States and Mexico.

Regulations Ariz. Calif. Co10.~ Mexico Nev. N.M. Ut.

Season opens

Season closes

Stratified hunt periods

Duration of hunt (days)

Method of permit allocation

% nonresident permits

Fund raiser permit available?

Cost of permit (U.S. dollars) Resident Nonresident

Legal weapons Archery Muzzleloader Centerfire rifle Handgun Crossbow Shotgun

Horses or mules permitted

Guides required

Legal sheep

Criteriafor permit quotas

5 Dec

11 Jan

Yes

17

Random drawing

10

Yes

1.50 750

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes

No

Any ram

20% of mature rams

5 Dec

20 Dec

No

16

Random drawing

Nonea

Yes

200

No No

20.222 No No No

Yes

No

2 3/4 curl ram

15% of mature rams

observed

15 Nov

15 Dec

No

30

Drawing

10

No

100 500

Yes 20.40 20.24 20.24

Yes 2 2 0 gauge

Yes

No

2 %curl ram

various population

harvest factors

18 Nov

11Mar

Yes

14

3 3

Yes

12,000

No No Yes No No No

Yes

Yes

Trophy ram

Based on population

surveys

15 Nov

28 Dec

No

30

Random drawing

10

Yes

75 800

Yes 20 .44 20.22 20.22

No 2 2 0 gauge

Yes

No

Any ram

10% of estimated

rams

S ~ P

Jan

Yes

9

Random drawing

No limit

No

38 373

Yes 20.40 20.24 20.24

No 2 2 8 gauge

Yes

No

2 )/4 curl ram

*8%of ram

population

15 Sep

15 Oct

No

30

Drawing

10

Yes

200 1,000

Yes 20.50

Yes No No No

Yes

No

Any ram

12% of rams

observed

aProposed regulations.


Hunting Seasons. -Hunting seasons open as early as September in Utah and New Mexico and in Mexico remain open until March. In the United States, seasons are open for a maximum of 30 days except in New Mexico, where Rocky Mountain bighorns are hunted from September to January. In Arizona and New Mexico, season dates vary between hunting units and are open for 17 and 9 days in each state, respectively. Mexico also has abbreviated hunting periods within its long hunting season.

Permit Allocation and Cost. - In the United States bighorn hunting permits are allocated through a drawing from an applicant pool. Not more than 10% of the permits may be issued to nonresidents except in Mexico where in 1986 approximately a third of the permits were issued to nonresidents. All states provide 2 1 permit annually for fund-raising purposes that may be purchased and used by a nonresident. Resident hunting permits cost from $75.00 in Nevada to $205.00 in California; nonresident permits cost from $500.00 in Colorado to $1,002.00 in Utah.

Legal Weapons. -In all states bighorns may be taken with archery equipment, muzzle loading firearms of at least 0.40 caliber, ,and centerfire firearms. Minimum centerfire calibers are 0.222 in California and 0.24 caliber in Colorado and New Mexico. Handguns are legal in all states except California and Utah. Crossbows are legal only in Colorado.

Legal Sheep. -Hunting is restricted to males in all states and Mexico, but the definition of a legal sheep varies. In at least some hunt units in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah any ram may be taken; in California rams must have a 3/4 curl or more. In Colorado and New Mexico, Rocky Mountain bighorns must have a 95 and % curl, respectively.

Determination of Harvest Quotas. -There is variation among the states and Mexico in the methodology used for determining bighorn harvest quotas (Table 1). Nevada restricts its harvest to 10% of the estimated ram population, while Arizona allows up to 20% of the mature rams to be taken from a population. California and Utah consider only observed rams in calculating harvest quotas while other states develop harvest quotas from an estimate of the total number of rams in the population.

Miscellaneous Regulations. -All states require that the head and carcass of any sheep harvested be checked at an official check station within 1 to 10 days following the date of kill or closing of the season. Four states require bighorn sheep hunters to attend an orientation course prior to hunting. Three states require possession of a spotting scope or binoculars 215x magnification while hunting, regardless of the type of sight on the hunter's firearms. Three states prohibit the use of aircraft to aid in the hunting or taking of bighorn sheep.

LITERATURE CITED Boone and Crockett Club. 1975. The wild sheep in modem North

America. The Winchester Press, New York, N.Y., 302pp. Buechner, H. K. 1960. The bighorn sheep in the United States: its

past, present, and future. Wildl. Monogr. 4. 174pp. Kelly, W. G. 1980. Hunting. Pages 336-342 in G. Monson and L.

Sumner, eds. The desert bighorn. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson. Monson, G. 1980. Distribution and abundance. Pages 40-51 in G.

Monson and L. Sumner, eds. The desert bighorn, Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson.


The mountain lion controversy was important to the park's bighorn

ARE THE GUADALUPE sheep reintroduction program because it effectively eliminated the immediate possibility of reintroducing any native wildlife species dur-

MOUNTAINS READY FOR ing a time when the-NPs was erron&usiy suspected of refntroducing lions to the national ~ a r k s . The resolution of the issue as far as the

BIGHORNS? NPS is concerned offers the opportunity for them to consider a bighorn sheep reintroduction effort.

Jim Walters Resources Management Specialist Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks Carlsbad, NM 88220

Guadalupe Mountains National Park (GMNF') borders the New Mexico and Texas state line and includes Guadalupe Peak, the highest point in Texas. The Guadalupe, Sacramento, and Capitan mountains historically supported bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) (Bailey 1928, Gross 1960) but information on the population density was unknown. Davis and Taylor (1939) estimated that the bighorn sheep population in the Guadalupe Mountain range was approximately 40 animals, with 15-20 animals occupying McKittrick Canyon drainage now in GMNP. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish estimates for the Guadalupe ~ o u n t a i n s ;anged from 100-200 bighorn sheep in the early 1900s.

The desert bighorn sheep was essentially extirpated from the Guadalupe Mountains by the mid-1930s. Sandoval (New Mexico Dep. Game and Fish, memo, Santa Fe, 1380) reported the presence of a small band of bighorn sheep in the Guadalupe Mountains in 1979 but these were probably from a 1971 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department bighorn sheep release almost 33 km south of the park. Sheep extirpation was attributed to heavy grazing by domestic sheep and goats, scabies, malta fever, hemorrhagic septicemia transmitted by domestic animals, and hunting pressure (Bailey 1928, Gross 1960, Jessup 1985). Land use by man decreased from 1940 to 1960 and h e number of ranchers, domestic sheep, cattle, and goats placed on the range (GMNP, unpubl. rep., 1971) also decreased. By 1960 grazing within the Texas portion of the Guadalupe Mountains was eliminated; in 1972 Congress passed legislation establishing the 30,888 ha GMNF'.

EARLY ATTEMPTS Because the native vegetation in GMNP has recovered with pro-

tection (Ahlstrand 1981), the National Park Service (NPS) has considered the reintroduction of bighorn sheep into their historic range in GMNP. Simpson and Leftwich's (1976) reintroduction feasibility study examined habitat conditions, water, food and mineral requirements, interspecific competition, and bighorn sheep behavioral patterns and concluded that GMNP provided suitable locations for bighorn sheep reintroduction. They recommended the use of holding pens and identified McKittrick Canyon as the most promising release site. McKittrick Canyon has the proper topography and water supply. It is 8.8 krn from the nearest domestic sheep ranch and the canyon's juxtaposition with equally suitable release sites (Big Canyon, N.M.) continues to make McKittrick Canyon a high priority site for consid- eration.

In the mid-1960s however, Carlsbad Caverns and GMNP became involved in a controversy involving mountain lions (Felis concolor) and livestock depredations on adjoining lands (GMNP, unpubl, rep., 1986). Three local sheep ranchers maintained that the national parks were acting as refuges from which individual mountain lions could launch nightly forays on sheep herds. The ranchers also maintained that the parks served as the principle habitat for juvenile mountain lions that had dispersed and populated the entire region. A 3-year study of mountain lions in the region (Harvey and Stanley 1986) concluded that the regional lion population was relatively high, but there also was a corresponding increase in mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). They concluded that mountain lions were distributed evenly throughout the study area, and recruitment to fill vacant home ranges within the 666 km study area population occurred from several directions within the study area.


TASK DIRECTIVE To detail the steps to be taken in the reintroduction project, the

NPS intends to develop a plan entitled "Desert bighorn sheep reintroduction at Guadalupe Mountains National Park - Task Directive". The document will identify the decision elements by which the reintroduction project can be evaluated and establish decision criteria to determine whether or not the project can, or should, proceed. Basic considerations in the task directive will be a reevaluation of habitat requirements (Wilson et al. 1980, Dodd 1982, Wilson and Douglas 1982), a determination of the potential for competition from deer and elk (Cewus elaphus), dispersal of mountain lions, and the establish- ment of reintroduction methodology.

The task directive will be released to the general public and to all groups and individuals having an interest in the project by late 1987. The release will include a public information program about the purposes of the reintroduction effort. It will address the effects of bighorn sheep reintroduction into the national park on present land management uses on public lands adjacent to the park (hunting, off-road vehicle use, oil and gas exploration, ranching) and the regional domestic sheep ranching industry. The geographic position of GMNF' makes it imperative that Texas and New Mexico support the project. Accor- dingly, the NPS intends to solicit the support and cooperation of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, bighorn sheep preservation groups, and the regional environmental community. Through the efforts of individuals and organizations dedicated to the welfare of desert bighorn sheep I hope bighorn sheep can be returned to the Guadalupe Mountains within 5 to 10 years.

LITERATURF CITED Ahlstrand, G. M. 1981. Ecology of fire in the Guadalupe Mountains

and adjacent Chihuahuan Desert. Natl. Park Serv. Coop. Stud. Unit Rep. Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock. 170pp.

Bailey, V. 1928. Animal life of Carlsbad Caverns. Monogr. Am. Soc. Mammal. 195pp.

Blaisdell, J. A. 1982. Lava Beds wrap-up, what did we learn? Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 26:32-33.

Davis, W. B., and W. P. Taylor. 1939. The bighorn sheep of Texas. J. Mammal. 20:440-445.

Dodd, N. L. 1983. Ideas and recommendations for maximizing desert bighorn transplant efforts. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 27: 12-16.

Gross, J. E. 1960. History, present and future status of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canaderzsis mexicana) in the Guadalupe Mountains of southeastern New Mexico and northwestern Texas. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 4:66-67.

Harvey, T., and W. Stanley. 1986. Mountain lions (Felis concolor) in the vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico, and Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. Natl. Park Serv. Cont. CX702930027. Guadalupe Mountains Nat. Park, Tex. 137pp.

Jessup, D. A. 1985. Diseases of domestic livestock which threatens bighorn sheep populations. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 29: 29-30.

Simpson, C. D., and T. J. Leftwich. 1976. Desert bighorn sheep: a feasibility study on their re-introduction to the Guadalupe Mountains. Natl. Park Sew. Coop. Stud. Unit Rep. Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock. 31pp.

Wilson, L. O., J. Blaisedell, G. Walsh, R. Weaver, R. Brigham, W. Kelley, J. Yoacum, M. Hinks, J. Turner, J. DeForge. 1980. Desert bighorn habitat requirements and management recommendations. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 24: 1-7.

, and C. L. Douglas, and the technical staff, Desert: Bighorn Council. 1982. Revised procedures for capturing and re- establishing desert bighorn. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 26: 1-7.


VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION IN THE CHALLENGE PROGRAM. FOR DESERT BIGHORN S m E P

Rita Suminski Schell Resource Area Biologist Ely District, Bureau of Land Management Star Route 5, Box I Ely, NV 89301

Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) were widely distributed throughout most major mountain ranges in southern and central Nevada (E. Guerrero, unpubl. rep., U.S. Bur. Land Manage., Las Vegas, Nev., 1985). Diseases transmitted by domestic sheep and indiscriminate hunting by early immigrants to the west resulted in extirpation of the large historic populations (Steward 1938).

Federal land managing agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), are working closely with the Nevada De- partment of Wildlife (NDOW) on a long-range project to re-establish bighorn sheep into suitable historic ranges. Transplants have been successful. Nevada Department of Wildlife recently conducted a sys- tematic study of all possible transplant sites. Habitat requirements were evaluated, recommendations were made, and areas were ranked by priority for reintroduction. Habitat improvements have been delayed because of limited funds. However, in fall 1984, Congress appropriated $290,000 for programs to assist desert bighorn sheep. Early in 1985 the Ely, Nevada, BLM District received word that $18,000 requested by the District was being granted contingent on the ability to match or exceed this amount with private dollars, services, and/or labor. This appropriation and the stipulation began the BLM challenge program for desert bighorn sheep. The Ely District received $48,000 of challenge money.

Key contributors to these projects include S. A. Davis, the Elko County Conservation Association, Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep, and the New White Pine Sportsmen's Club. Many other non-affiliated volunteers and governmental agencies were involved.

PROJECT AREAS In 1984 NDOW identified potential desert bighorn sheep habitat

on public lands in Nevada (M. Dobel, unpubl. rep., NDOW, 1984). Of 16 suitable ranges the Ely BLM District had 8 areas suitable for bighorn sheep reintroductions including the Far South Egan Range (Fig. 1). The Far South Egan Range has been identified as the range with the best potential for bighorn sheep reintroduction and should receive the highest priority of the ranges investigated (Dobel 1984). Habitat can be immediately enhanced with the addition of water that has been eliminated by highways and agriculture. The Far South Egan Range may receive additional protection if classified as wilderness.

When waters are added, NDOW expects the Far South Egan Range to support 12 sheep/km2. About 197 km2 could be expected to provide habitat for desert bighorns (Dobel 1984). An initial release of 25 animals was planned for 1987 or later. With the unexpected ability to develop the necessary waters due to the inception of the challenge program the time table was accelerated. Bighorn sheep will be released (D. E. Delaney, NDOW, pers. comm.) after water is added.

The Hiko Range (Fig. 1) was also ready for water development and subsequent reintroduction of desert bighorn sheep. Some of the challenge program money would be spent to begin a series of water developments needed for the release in the Hiko Range. This area is not a wilderness area, but is rugged a i~d inaccessible. Over 101 km2

of habitat are expected to carry 9 bighorn sheep/km2 (137 animals) (Dobel 1984). The Hiko Range is adjacent to other mountain ranges that provide habitat for older, reintroduced populations.

l c m : approx. 13 k m

HlKO RANGE

Figure 1. Location of the challenge program projects for desert bighorn sheep in the Ely, Nevada, Bureau of Land Management Dishict.

THE CHALLENGE The Ely BLM District determined that the best use of the Challenge

Program money would be to purchase materials to construct water facilities and/or to supplement the purchase of helicopter flight time for bighorn sheep reintroductions. Donations from private sources were requested for miscellaneous material and helicopter flight time to transport workers and equipment. Donations of labor were solicited from the private sector to install the water facilities.

In 1985, an application for flight time funding ($12,000) was supported by the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep of Cody, Wyoming. This grant was the first of several contributions by various organizations. Negotiations for helicopter services also resulted in' donated services from 2 companies. Five other sportsmen's groups and 2 companies were contacted and asked if they would donate labor and specialized tools to help build the facilities as a contribution to the project. The donation of labor meant that all of the volunteers would have to drive 2160 km 1 way to get to the work site. Every group responded favorably. In addition, several non-affiliated volunteers and NDOW, BLM, and U. S. Forest Service personnel committed support.


THE RESPONSE Nevada Department of Wildlife biologists and a BLM wildlife

and wilderness specialist travelled to the Far South Egan and Hiko ranges to choose sites for water facilities. Over the past 3 years 12 development sites have been selected. Four of these are within the Wilderness Study Area in the Far South Egan Range. In this case, the specialists had to choose locations and a water facility design that would satisfy the bighorn sheep needs and be nonimpairing to the wilderness values. Materials for the water facilities had to be transported by helicopter to the sites.

Ten of the water development facilities were to consist of a circular fiberglass catchment dome covering an 8,000 L fiberglass storage basin. Four of these units will have supplemental polythylene catchment surfaces installed in 1987 that will help catch precipitation. One water development site was geographically suited to build a "slick rock" catchment wherein a natural rock cap catches precipitation that is stored in a tank.

Volunteer builders were airlifted to the building sites in summer, 1985 and 1986. Volunteers worked 10 hourslday building and install- ing the water units. In 1985, 4 water facilities were assembled in 1 day. In 1986, 5 were built in a day.

The culmination of the projects and the reward of the hard work came in 1986. After winter snows and summer rains had filled the water units the Far South Egan Range was ready for bighorn sheep. Desert sheep were trapped near Las Vegas, Nevada, and were transported to the release site in early July.

Nineteen desert bighorn sheep were released into the Far South Egan Range. After an initial exploratory trip of nearly 64 km, the sheep returned to the release canyon.

Two weeks later 17 sheep were seen drinking from a water development. Lambs are expected to be born into the population spring 1987. The NDOW regularly monitors the radio-collared sheep that have settled in the release canyon. These bighorn sheep were the first to inhabit the historic area in 100 years. In summer 1987, the Hiko Range will be ready to receive the desert bighorns that are scheduled to be released in July.

Private benefactors contributed $54,000 worth of cash, labor, and materials. Volunteers donated 3,400 hours of labor. As of 1987, 144 volunteers from 7 states and Canada have been involved. These volunteers have come from as far as Oregon and Alberta, Canada. In addition, there have been 3 private companies and 6 sportsmen's organizations from 3 states involved in the projects.

In 1987 new projects to benefit bighorn sheep will be completed, and 90% of the private individuals and organizations that were initially involved will return. Third time contributors represent interests as diverse as the Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn, Las Vegas, Nevada, to Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. of Provo, Utah. Over $10,000 worth of labor has been committed from private sources so far for 1987.

With the help of the innovative challenge program, the major hurdle of federal budget cuts was crossed and populations of desert bighorn sheep have been enhanced. As a result of the challenge program, there will be 2 new desert bighorn sheep populations in Nevada and the government realized a substantial savings related to the con- struction of the water projects. Most importantly, private organizations and people were able to become involved with an aspect of managing the public lands.

LITERATURE CITED Steward, J. H. 1938. Ethnography of the Owens Valley Paiute. Arch.

and Ethnol. 33:233-350.


OBITUARIES

JOHN P. RUSSO

The Desert Bighorn Council lost one of its early members on 6 August 1987. John P. Russo was a guiding force and an avid supporter of the Council in its formative years.

John was the Council's Secretary-Treasurer from 1965 through 1968. In 1965 he was the recipient of the Council's Outstanding Contributions Award for his early work on desert bighorn sheep in Arizona.

John joined the Arizona Game and Fish Department in 1950 to begin desert bighorn sheep life history studies and to develop a management plan. In 1956, his work culminated in Arizona's Wildlife Bulletin No. 1, "The Desert Bighorn Sheep in Arizona" - a publication considered by many as a classic. Even now (some 30 years later) publications about bighorn are not considered complete without quot- ing John's fine bulletin. Precepts and recommendations contained therein are still followed in bighorn management.

John's work also provided the information that led to Arizona's first bighorn sheep hunt in 1953. Bighorn were not legally hunted up to that time.

In 1956 John dropped his bighorn sheep studies but not his interest

and transferred to northern Arizona as the Kaibab North deer biologist. John distinguished himself again with another management publication in 1964: Wildlife Bulletin No. 7, "The Kaibab North Deer Herd - Its History, Problems and Management. "

John's career became more and more responsible throughout his years with Arizona although he maintained an unflagging interest in bighorn sheep. In turn, John became big game supervisor, then Chief of the Game Management Division, finally retiring in 1983 as an associate administrative services officer. He last addressed the Council in 1984 at the Bullhead City, Arizona meeting - some 4 months after retirement.

John was well known as a personable, supportive, individual interested in all phases of wildlife management. His leadership resulted in the development of several innovative hunt designs in Arizona. Eventually, we will all follow John but there are few who will equal the contribution he left to wildlife, particularly to desert bighorn sheep.

John is survived by his wife Jeanne and sons Michael, Terry, and Kip. They fully supported him thoughout his career. - R. A. Weaver, P.O. Box 1383, Loomis, CA 95650.


WILD HORSES OF THE GREAT BASIN DESERT: SOCIAL COMPETITION AND POPULATION SIZE. By J. Berger. Univ. Chicago Press, Ill. 1986. 326pp., 27 black-and-white photographs, 39 figures, 23 tables, 8 appendices. $27.50 (cloth).

This is another excellent book in the series on wildlife behavior and ecology published by The University of Chicago Press. In Wild horses author Joel Berger presents the results of a 5-year study of the behavior and ecology of feral horses. The central theme of the book is to test the theory "if individuals that are likely to reproduce do not do so because of the behavior of others, then social limitations are imposed on the size of the population."

This study is unique and interesting because Berger was able to identify and monitor all individual horses in the population he studied. Doing so allowed him to compare the behavior and reproductive success of individuals and relate differences to sex, social status, home range quality, and other factors. These comparisons provide some insight of the behavior, ecology, and evolution of horses and of sexual selection.

In Chapter 1, "The Struggle for Existence," Berger sets the stage for his study by briefly introducing topics such as sexual selection and social limitations of population size. I would have preferred to find a more detailed description of the objectives of this study and topics discussed in the book at this point; however, this information is provided at the beginning of each chapter.

Chapter 2 is a review of the ecology and behavior of equids. This chapter describes the evolution of equids in North America, the ecology and current distribution of wild equids, and the introduction of feral equids into North America.

Chapter 3 describes the study area and methods. The study area, in northwest Nevada, was well chosen: there was no human disturbance or cattle grazing, the area was isolated from other habitat enough to prevent movements into and out of the population, and the horses were easily observed and followed. LQ this chapter, Berger describes and defends his ability to individually identify horses and presents a complete ethogram.

Chapter 4, "Land-use Systems and Resources," is a description of feeding ecology, movements, and home ranges. I had some trouble understanding Berger's method of determining site quality, but the discussion of the relation between home range quality and breeding success is interesting.

Chapter 5 is a discussion of the fecundity and mortality of the population and a test of the hypothesis that the sex ratio is skewed to females because of competition among males for females. Chapter 6 is a discussion of reproduction; duration of gestation and timing of parturition; body condition; influence of home range quality on matura- tion; and influence of reproductive status, sex, season, and home range quality on foraging budgets.

In Chapter 7 , Berger uses data on band composition, associations among individuals, and rates of aggression to examine interactions among males for females, among females for forage, and between the sexes. He describes when and why males fight for females, and the costs associated with harem acquisition and defense. He discovered that dominance hierarchies among females within bands were not well developed and provides a plausible explanation for why this occurred. One of the most interesting discoveries of this study is that males caused feticide- abortions in newly acquired females caused by harassment or forced copulations. This allowed the male to impregnate the female with his offspring.

Chapter 8 describes the differences in time and energy that males and females invest in their sons versus daughters. The dispersal of offspring from their natal bands and the development of fighting behavior in males are also discussed here.

Chapter 9 is one of the most interesting sections of the book. Berger describes the variation in reproductive success among individuals and discusses the consequences and possible evolutionary causes of this variation. This excellent discussion provides much insight into the differences in behavior and ecological strategies of males versus

In Chapter 10, Berger examines his central theme of whether social behavior limited the size of the population he studied and compares his conclusions with other bird and mammal populations. While reading this book, I was concerned that a feral animal domes- ticated for >1,000 years was a poor choice of species for a study of questions that must be explained in an evolutionary context. However, in this chapter and elsewhere, Berger adequately defends his decision to study horses and qualifies his results when the effects of domesti- cation prevent comparison with wild species.

The final chapter summarizes the conservation and management of feral horses, the ecological segregation and potential for competition between horses and native ungulates, and the positive and negative effects that feral horses have had on their environment. Berger outlines his recommendations for managing and preserving feral horses in the Great Basin Desert.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in horses, to biologists interested in behavior and population ecology, and especially to those of us interested in bighorn sheep. This book should be of particular interest to biologists studying bighorn sheep for 3 reasons. First, competition between feral equids and bighorn sheep is aconcern of bighorn sheep managers. Although, as Berger explains (pg. 251), there was little chance for cowpetition between feral horses md bighorn sheep in his study area, his study provides information that will help us manage feral equids where they may be detrimental to bighorn sheep. Second, throughout the book, Berger provides cop- parisons of his findings on the behavior and ecology of horses with his and others' studies of bighorn sheep. Third, we can learn much from Berger's study design and methods. A long-term study of the social behavior and reproductive success of a population of individually recognizable bighorn sheep can provide us with a much better understanding of bighorn sheep ecology and hopefully someday will be the goal of a bighorn sheep biologist. Kurt R. Rautenstrauch, School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tuc- son, AZ 85721.

females.


RECENT DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP LITERATURE 1984-1987

Ashcroft, G. E. W. 1986. Attempted defense of a lamb by a female bighorn sheep. J. Mammal. 67:427-428.

Bates, J. W., J. W. Bates, and J. G. Guymon. 1985. Comparison of drive nets and darting for capture of desert bighorn sheep. Wildl. SOC. Bull. 13:73-76.

Bennett, B. 1983. Social dominance in female bighorn sheep. Am. Zool. 23:936.

Bleich, V. C. 1986. Early breeding in free-ranging mountain sheep. Southwest. Nat. 31530-531.

Clark, R. K., D. A. Jessup, M. D. Kock, and R. A. Weaver. 1985. Survey of desert bighorn sheep in California for exposure to selected infectious diseases. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 187: 1175-1179.

Coopemder, A. 1985. The desert bighorn. Pages 472-485 in R. L. DiSilvestro, ed., Audubon Wildlife Report 1985. Nat. Audubon Soc. New York, N.Y.

Dailey, T. V., N. T. Hobbs, andT. N. Woodard. 1984. Experimental comparisons of diet selection by mountain goats and mountain sheep in Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:799-806.

Dodd, N. L. 1987. Ecological relationship of sympatric desert bighorn sheep and cattle at Aravaipa Canyon, Arizona. M.S. Thesis, Arizona State Univ., Tempe. 129pp.

Douglas, C. L., and D. M. Leslie, Jr. 1986. Influence of weather and density on lamb survival of desert mountain sheep. J. Wildl. Manage. 50:153-156.

Dunbar, M. R., D. A, Jessup, J. F. Evermann, and W. J. Foreyt. 1985. Seroprevalence of respiratory syncytial virus in free-ranging bighorn sheep. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 187:1173-1174.

Eccles, T. R., and D. M. Shackleton. 1986. Correlates and consequences of social status in female bighorn sheep. Anim. Behav. 34:1392-1401.

Fairbanks, W. S., J. A. Bailey, and R. S. Cook. 1987. Habitat use by a low-elevation, semicaptive bighorn sheep population. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:912-915.

Festa-Bianchet, M. 1986. Site fidelity and season4 range use by bighorn rams. Can. J. Zool. 64:2126-2132.

. 1986. Seasonal dispersion of overlapping mountain sheep ewe groups. J. Wildl. Manage. 50:325-330.

, and J. T. Jorgenson. 1985. Use of xylazine and ketamine to irnrnobolize bighorn sheep in Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:162-165.

Ganskopp, D. C. 1984. Habitat use and spatial interactions of cattle, wild horses, mule deer, and California bighorn sheep in the Owyee Breaks of southeast Oregon. Ph.D. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis . 2 12pp.

, andM. Vavra. 1986. Slope used by cattle, wildhorses, deer, and bighorn sheep. Soc. Range. Manage. Annu. Meeting. 38:43.

Gionfriddo, J. P., and P. R. Krausman. 1986. Summer habitat use by mountain sheep. J. Wildl. Manage. 50:331-336.

Harper, W. L., and R. D. H. Cohen. 1985. Accuracy of doppler ultrasound in diagnosing pregnancy in bighorn sheep. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:793-796.

Hobbs, N. T., and R. A. Spowart. 1984. Effects of prescribed fire on nutrition of, mountain sheep and mule deer during winter and spring. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:% 1-560.

Hogg, J. T. 1984. Mating in bighorn sheep: multiple creative male strategies. Science 225:526-529.

Holl, S. A., and V. C. Bleich. 1987. Mineral lick use by mountain sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains, California. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:383-385.

Jessup, D. A., W. E. Clark, andR. C. Mohr. 1984. Captureof bighorn sheep: management recommendations. Calif. Dep. Fish and Game. 3 4 ~ ~ .

, K. R. Jones, R. Clark, and W. R. Lange. 1985. Immobilization of free-ranging desert bighorn sheep, tule elk, and wild horses, using carfentanil and xylazine: reversal with naloxone, diprenorphine, and yohirnbine. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 187: 1253-1254.

, K. R. Jones, R. Mohr, and T. Kulera. 1985. Yohim- bine antagonism to xylazine in free-ranging mule deer and desert bighorn sheep. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 187:1251-1253.

Keating, K. A., L. R. Irby, and W. F. Kasworm. 1985. Mountain sheep winter food habits in the upper Yellowstone valley. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:156-161.

Krausman, P. R. 1985. Impacts of the Central Arizona Project on desert mule deer and desert bighorn sheep. U. S. Bur. Rec. Final Rep. 9-07-30-X069. 246pp.

3 . J. Hervert, andL. L. Ordway. 1985. Capturing deer andmountainsheep withanet gun. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:71-73.

, and B. D. Leopold. 1986. Habitat components for desert bighorn sheep in the Harquahala Mountains, Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage. 50504-508.


Loomis, J. B., D. M. Donnelly, C. F. Sorg, and L. Oldenburg. 1985. Net economic value of hunting unique species in Idaho, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, moose, antelope. U. S. For. Sew. Resour. Bull. RM-10. 16pp.

Lovari, S., editor 1985. The biology and management of mountain ungulates. Croom Helrm, Dover, N.H. 271pp.

MacArthur, R. A, , V. Geist, and R. H. Johnston. 1986. Cardiac re- sponses of bighorn sheep to trapping and radio instrumentation. Can. J. Zool. 64:1197-1200.

Miller, M. W., N. T. Hobbs, W. H. Rutherford, and L. L. W. Miller. 1987. Eff~cacy of injectible invermectin for treating lungworm infections in mountain sheep. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 15:260-263.

Morgart, J. R., and P. R. Krausman. 1985. Early breeding in bighorn sheep. Southwest. Nat. 28:460-461.

, W. H. Brown, and F. M. Whiting. 1986. Chemical analysis of mountain sheep forage in the Virgin Mountains, Arizona. Univ. Arizona Coll. Agric. Tech. Bull. 257. llpp.

Risenhoover, K. L., and J. A. Bailey. 1985. Foraging ecology of mountain sheep: implications for habitat management. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:797-804.

Scott, J. E. 1986. Food habits and nutrition of desert bighom sheep Ovis canadensis cremnobates in the Santa Rosa Mountains, California. M.S. Thesis, Univ. California, Davis. 81pp.

Shackleton, D. M., and J. Haywood. 1985. Early mother-young interactions in California bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis canadensis. Can. J. Zool. 63:868-875.

Spowart, R. A., and N. T. Hobbs. 1985. Effects of fire on diet overlap between mule deer and mountain sheep. J. Wildl. Manage. 49: 942-946.

Spraker, T. R., C. P. Hibler, G. G. Schoonveld, and W. S. Adney. 1984. Pathologic changes and microorganisms found in bighorn sheep during a stress-related die-off. J. Wildl. Dis. 20:319-327.

Valdez, R. 1983. Wild sheep and wild sheep hunters of the Old World. Wild Sheep and Goat Intl., Mesilla, N. M. 209pp.

Wakelyn, L. A. 1987. Changing habitat conditions on bighorn sheep ranges in Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 5 1 :9O4-9 12.

Wang, X., and J. F. Neas. 1987. A large bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis (Artiodactyla: Bovidae), from the late Pleistocene of Colo- rado. Southwest. Nat. 32:281-283.

Wanick, G., and P. R. Krausman. 1986. Bone-chewing by desert bighom sheep. Southwest. Nat. 31:414.

, and , 1987. Foraging behavior of female mountain sheep in western Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:99-104.

Watts, T. J., and S. D. Schernnitz. 1985. Mineral lick use and movement in a remnant desert bighorn sheep population. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:994-996.

Wehausen, J. D., V. C. Bleich, B. Blong, and T. L. Russi. 1987. Recruitment dynamics in a southern California mountain sheep population. J. Wildl. Manage. 5 1:86-98.

Wikeem, B. M., and M. D. Pitt. 1987. Evaluation of methods to determine use of browse by California mountain sheep. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 15:430-433.

Compiled by Rosemary Mazaika andRichard C. Etchberger, School of Renewable Natural Resources, 210 Biological Sciences East, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721. Material for inclusion on this list should be submitted to the compilers.


Donald J. Armentrout Secretary - Treasurer P. 0. Box 521 Winnemucca, NV 89445

James A. Bailey Fish and Wildlife Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523

Gary Bateman Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, AZ 8601 1

Jim Blaisdell 5425 Indian Beach Lane Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Vern Bleich P. 0. Box 1371 Bishop, CA 93514

William R. Brigham Technical Staff Member P. 0. Box 1806 Carson City, NV 89702

Bill Burger 932 E. Impala Avenue Mesa, AZ 85204

Mayo W. Call Box 893 Afton, WY 831 10

Marguerite Carpenter 815 W. Gettysburg Fresno. CA 93705

Richard Clark P. 0 . Box 222821 c m e i , CA 93922

Jenness Coffey 6350 Bagley Avenue 2 Twentynine Palms, CA 92277

Michael A. Coffey Lake Mead N.R.A. 601 Nevada Hwy Boulder City, NV 89005

Virginia Cogar BOX C-110 Range Animal Science Sul Ross State University Alpine, TX 79832

Allen Coopemder P. 0. Box 558 LaPorte, CO 80535

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1987-1988 MEMBERSHIP LIST

Stan Cunningham Ark. Game and Fish Department 2222 W. Greenway Phoenix, AZ 85023

Jim Deforge Technical Staff Member P. 0. Box 262 Palm Desert, CA 92261

Daniel Delaney 6946 Elkwood Las Vegas, NV 891 17

Charles Douglas 1444 Rawhide Road Boulder City, NV 89005

Bill Dunn 245 Lakeshore Road Boulder City, NV 89005

Amy Elenowitz N.M. Dep. of Game and Fish Villagra Building Santa Fe, NM 87501

Richard Etchberger 210 Biological Sciences East University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

Art Fuller 1025 Hillside Drive Kingman, AZ 86401

Bruce Garlinger 13384 Gilbert Street North Edwards, CA 93523

Robert L. Glaze Star Route Box 645B Kerrville, TX 78028

Van K. Graham 7 1 1 Indepenent Avenue '

Grand Junction, CO 81506

Ken Gray 3795 South Redwood Las Vegas, NV 89103

Rob Gross P. 0. Box 4051 Davis, CA 95617

Jim Guymon P. 0. Box 767 Parowan, UT 84761

Mike Hansen P. 0. Box 81061 Fairbanks, AK 99708

Pat Hansen P. 0. Box 596 Kenwood, CA 95452

William D. Helprin, Jr . Dep. Fisheries and Wildlife Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-5210

Patricia Hoban P. 0. Box 756 Las Cruces, NM 88004

Kenneth E. Holmes 1714 Royal Drive Las Cruces, NM 88001

Doug Humphrey s N.M. Dep. Game and Fish State Capitol Santa Fe, NM 87503

Bob Jurgens 1850 Hualapai Drive Riveria, AZ 86442

Warren E. Kelly 85408 Glenada Florence, OR 97439

Jack Kilpatric Terlinga Route, Box 80 Alpine, TX 79830

Mike King 598 North 300 East Logan, UT 84321

Gary A. Knapp 933 Cheyenne Los Alamos, NM 87544

Phil Koepp Box 7 Salt Flat, TX 79847

H. G. Kothmann 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744

Steven D. Kovach P. 0. Box 1701 San Bruno. CA 94066

Paul R. Krausman Transactions Editor 325 Biological Sciences East University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

Raymond Lee 2222 W. Greenway Phoenix, AZ 85023


Jess Low 648 Summcawild Logan, UT 84321

Joan Scott Box D Tyndall Air Force Base, FL 32403

William E. Werner 3005 Pacific Avenue Yuma, AZ 85365

Carl L. Mahon Box 871 Monticello, UT 84535

Joan E. Scott 333 East Center St. Moab, UT 84532

Jack White 1410 South Goliad 1108 Rockwall. TX 75087

Eugene I. Majerowicz 4449 Presidio Drive Los Angeles, CA 90008

Linda Seibert 1001 South Almendra Las Cmces, NM 88001

P. J. White 328 Birmingham St. Paul, MN 55106

Antonio Martinez G. Rio Elbano 20 Mexico DF

Dave Smith 365 East 400 South Delta, UT 84624

Charles Winkler 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744

Lanny 0. Wilson Route 1, Box 1670 Cottonwood, ID 83522

Rosemary Mazaika 325 Biological Sciences East University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721

J. Juan Spillett Technical Staff Member Box 278 Rockland, ID 83271

Glenda Wise 10521 Corporate Drive Stafford, TX 77477

Ralph W. McClintock P. 0. Box 10232 Reno, NV 89510

Mark C. Stanger 719 East 1875 South Bountiful, UT 84010

Jim Witham 8229 Carrolton Court North Hanover Park, IL 60 103

Henry McCutchen 3009 Ringneck Drive Fort Collins, CO 80526

Tem Steel Dep. Fisheries and Wildlife UMC 5210 Logan, UT 84322 Jerry L. Wolfe

2771 Cheyenne Drive Grand Junction, CO 81503

Tom L. McKnight Dep. Geography 1255 Bunche Hall Univ. California Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90024

Craig Stockwell Box 5640 Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, AZ 8601 1

Deborah Wolford 7 Cerrado Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505

Gonzalo Medina G. Cadiz 173-2 Col Arnalos, Mexico DF 03400

Rita Suminski P. 0. Box 614 East Ely, NV 89315

Gar W. Workman Dep. Fisheries and Wildlife Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-5210 Gale Monson

883 1 North Riviera Drive Oro Valley, AZ 85737

Daisan E. Taylor 2914 B Majestic Ridge L,as Cmces, NM 88001

Thomas C. Wylie P. 0. Box 5672 Woodland Parks, CO 80866-5672 John R. Morgart, ABD

6606 W. Jamaica Dr. Glendale, AZ 85306

Frank Topper P. 0 . Box 218 Van Horn, TX 79855

Andy Pauli P. 0 . Box BD Blythe, CA 92225

Martha Tripp 10521 Corporate Drive Stafford, TX 77477

Arlen W. Pietsch 17 1 Prairie View New Braunfels, TX 78130

Steve Van Riper 161 1 North 2nd Avenue Ajo, AZ 85321

Richard Remington 3005 Pacific Avenue Yuma, AZ 85365-3596

James Walters Carlsbad Caverns National Park 3225 National Parks Highway Carlsbad, NM 88220 Andrew V. Sandoval

Technical Staff Member 7 Cerrado Drive Santa Fe. NM 87505

Richard A. Weaver Technical Staff, Chairman Box 1383 Loomis, CA 95650 Sanford Schemnitz

Box 4901 New Mexico State University Dep. Fish and Wildlife Sci. Las Cmces, NM 88003

George Welsh 1954 Golden Avenue Kingman, AZ 86401


GENERAL POLICY: Original papers in the field of desert bighorn sheep ecology and management are published in the DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS. All papers presented at the Council's annual meetings are eligible for publication. Additional papers may be published when reviewed and approved by the Editorial Board. Costs for papers >10 printed pages will be charged to the author at the current cost per page unless authorized by the Editorial Board. Papers must be submitted to the Editor at or before the Council's annual meeting to be considered for the current edition of the Trans- actions.

COPY: Use good quality white paper215 x 280mm (8.5 X 11 inches), or size A4. Do not use "erasable", light weight, or mimeo bond paper. Double space throughout, with 3-cm margins. Do not hyphenate at the right margin. Type the name and complete address of the person who is to receive editorial correspondence in the top left comer of page 1. On succeeding pages type the senior author's last name in the top left comer and the page number in the top right corner. The author's name and affiliation at the time the study was performed follows the title. Present address, if different, should be indicated in a footnote on the first page. Keep 1 copy. Submit 4 good xerographic copies. Do not fold any copy.

STYLE: Proceed from a clear statement of purpose through introduction, study area, methods, results, and discussion. Sequence of contents: title, authors, abstract, introduction, study area, methods, results, discussion, literature cited, tables and figures. Follow the CBE Style Mamtal: a guide for artthors, editors, and publishers in the biological scieilces, 5th ed. rev. and expanded, 1983 (Counc. Biol. Eds., Inc., Bethesda, MD 208 14), except for specific style items that differ in recent issues of The Eallsactions. Consult the 1987 TRANS- ACTIONS and Manuscript Guidelines for the Journal of Wildlife Man- agement (J. Wildl. Manage. 52 [ l , Suppl.]) for examples of prevailing style. For numbers, use digits except at the beginning of a sentence. Use percent sign (%) with digits.

TITLE: The title should be concise, descriptive, and 5 1 0 words. Use vernacular names of organisms.

FOOTNOTES: Use only for an author's address if it differs from the byline address, and in tables.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Include acknowledgements at the end of the introduction as an untitled paragraph.

SCIENTIFIC NAMES: Vernacular names of plants and animals should be accompanied by the appropriate scientific names (in pa- rentheses) the first time each is mentioned.

ABSTRACT: An abstract of about 1-2 typed lines per typed page of text should accompany all articles. The abstract should be an infor- mative digest of significant content. It should be able to stand alone as a brief statement of problems examined, the most important findings, and their utility.

REFERENCES: Authors are responsible for accuracy and complete- ness and must use the style in TRANSACTIONS since 1986. Avoid unnecessary references. Order multiple references consecutively by date. Show page numbers for quotations, paraphrases, and for citations in books or bulletins unless reference is to the entire publication. Cite unpublished reports only if essential. Include source, paging, type of reproduction, and place unpublished reports are filed parenthetically in the text.

TABLES: Prepare tables in keeping with the size of the pages. Tables should be self-explanatory and referenced in the text. Short tables with lists of pertinent comments are preferred to long tables. Start each table on a separate page and continue onto 1 or more pages as necessary. Double space throughout. Omit vertical lines. Identify footnotes by roman letters. Do not show percentages within small samples (N<26).

ILLUSTRATIONS: Illustrations and drawings must be in India ink or equivalent on 215 x 280 mm (8.5 x 11 inches) white drafting paper or tracing cloth. Make all letters and numbers large enough to be 3 1 . 5 mm tall when reduced. Lettering size and style when reduced should be the same in all figures. Only essential photographs for half-tone illustrations will be acceptable. Submit prints of good contrast on glossy paper. Type captions on a separate page in paragraph form. On the back of each illustration, lightly write the senior author's name, figure number, and "Top".

PROOF: All papers will be reviewed for acceptability by the Editorial Board and 2 outside reviewers. Submit papers to Dr. Paul R . Kraus- man, Desert Bighorn Transactions, 108 Biological Sciences East Building, School of Renewable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721. When papers are returned to authors for revision, please return corrected manuscripts within 30 days. Gal- ley proofs should be returned within 72 hours.

TRANSMITTAL LETTER: When the manuscript is submitted, send a letter to the Editor, stating intent to submit the manuscript exclusively for publication in the TRANSACTIONS. Explain any similarities between information in the manuscript and that in other publications or concurrent manuscripts by the same author(s), and furnish a copy of such manuscripts or publications.

Desert Bighorn Council€¦ · StevenD.Kovach ..... 35 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP HUNTING REGULATIONS AND...

Documents

Transcript of Desert Bighorn Council€¦ · StevenD.Kovach ..... 35 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP HUNTING REGULATIONS AND...