317

Chapter 6

Chapter 6 – Game and OtherHigh-Interest Species

The childhood training of hunters is not so much practical trainingas the opening of spiritual doors.... Hunting had put a premium onphysical good health, on sensitivity to environment and to the nuancesand clues in a delicate and beautiful world, on independence,confidence, persistence, generosity, and had given them a powerfulsense of the non-human creation.

— Paul Shepard (1973)

There is a value in any experience that exercises those ethical restraintscollectively called ‘sportsmanship.’ Our tools for the pursuit of wildlifeimprove faster than we do, and sportsmanship is a voluntarylimitation in the use of those armaments... a peculiar virtue ofwildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaudor disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated byhis own conscience rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficultto exaggerate the importance of this fact.

— Aldo Leopold (1966)

Key Questions• What is the current status of major

game and other high-interest animalpopulations in the coastal mountainsof southern California?

• What are the primary managementissues for these species?

This chapter examines the current statusand trends of the most popular game animalsin the region as well as several other speciesthat are of particularly high interest to people.Hunting and fishing are popular activities inthe assessment area. State and federal land andresource management agencies invest consid-erable time and effort managing habitats andmonitoring populations of game species.Many of the same habitats that are importantto rare and at-risk species are also importantto game animals.

FishThe majority of anglers who go to the

mountains and foothills of southern Califor-

nia head for the lakes, where a variety of popu-lar sport fish are planted. These lake fisheriesare primarily managed by local water districtsand the California Department of Fish andGame (CDFG), usually with minimal involve-ment from the public land managementagencies. For this reason we do not addresslake sport fish in this report. For those whoprefer flowing waters, there are many fishablemountain streams. The primary sport fish inthese streams is the rainbow trout.

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)Status and Distribution: Rainbow trout

occur throughout the assessment area. A fewpopulations of native steelhead remain (ananadramous or ocean-going rainbow trout; see“Fish” section, chapter 4) primarily in the LosPadres National Forest where some are nowlandlocked by downstream barriers to the ocean.However, most of the trout found in southernCalifornia today are stocked hatchery fish. Manystreams in the region are regularly restocked tomaintain a recreational fishery.

318

A few local streams that support produc-tive, self-sustaining trout populations havebeen designated as “wild trout streams” by theCDFG. These include Sespe Creek and PiruCreek in the southern Los Padres, the WestFork of the San Gabriel River in the SanGabriel Mountains, and Deep Creek and BearCreek in the San Bernardino Mountains(Deinstadt et al. 1990). These streams havespecial fishing regulations, including catch-and-release requirements and barbless hooks.Wild trout management plans have been de-veloped for Deep Creek and Bear Creek(Hoover 1983; Hoover and Deinstadt 1989).

Several other local trout streams have thespecial catch-and-release and barbless hooksregulations. These include the San AntonioRiver, South Fork of the San Jacinto River,and Pauma Creek and the West Fork of theSan Luis Rey River on Palomar Mountain.

Habitat: Rainbow trout can tolerate a va-riety of water conditions but prefer cool waters.They do best in streams that have deep poolsand a well-developed canopy of riparian treesthat shade the water (Deinstadt et al. 1990).Aquatic vegetation provides excellent cover fortrout.

Management Issues: The biggest issue forthe region’s trout streams is maintaining ad-equate stream flows. Most of the wild troutstreams lie below dams, and their survival isdependent on sustained water releases fromthose impoundments. Organizations such asCal Trout, Trout Unlimited, and San DiegoTrout have played a major role in persuadingwater agencies to commit to sustained waterreleases in these systems. Trout stocking pro-grams must increasingly consider the effectsof this activity on native fish and amphibians,many of which are rare and declining. Thespecial regulations applied to keep wild troutwaters from being overfished generally seemto be working. Many of these streams are inback-country areas that are relatively difficultto access. This helps reduce fishing pressureon these waters.

BirdsQuail, turkeys, and pigeons are addressed

in this section because they are the most com-monly hunted game birds in the assessmentarea. Waterfowl and doves are not addressedbecause, although they do occur in the moun-tains, they are not found in large numbers andfew people go to the mountains to hunt them.

California Quail (Callipepla californica) andMountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus)

Status and Distribution: California quailand mountain quail are native gallinaceousbirds found throughout the assessment areain a wide variety of habitats. California quailrange from sea level to about 5,000 feet, whilemountain quail extend from below 2,000 toover 9,000 feet (Garrett and Dunn 1981). Therange of these two species overlaps broadly,but they have distinct habitat and behavioraldifferences. Mountain quail occur in moredensely vegetated habitats and are dispersedin relatively small coveys of fewer than fifteenbirds. California quail prefer more open habi-tats and typically form coveys of forty to sixtybirds, with some containing well over onehundred (Leopold et al. 1981). Californiaquail tend to burst into flight to escape a threat,while mountain quail have a greater tendencyto flee on foot. The larger coveys, propensityto fly, and occurrence in open habitats makethe California quail more desirable to huntand thus a much more popular game bird.

Habitat: Mountain quail typically inhabitforested habitat and dense chaparral, whileCalifornia quail tend to frequent openings andedge habitats (Leopold et al. 1981). Primehabitat for mountain quail is extensive and wellrepresented on public lands within the assess-ment area. This is less true for California quail;commonly called “valley quail,” they reachpeak abundance in valley and foothill bottomlands where there is a good mix of openings,brushy cover, and water. These productivebottom-land habitats are predominantly inprivate ownership and many acres have beenconverted to croplands and subdivisions thatsupport few quail. California quail do occurin the chaparral-covered hills but mostly at low

319

Chapter 6densities. Biswell et al. (1952) found 100 quailper square mile in unbroken chaparral, withnumbers increasing to 250 per square mile inareas where small openings had been createdby burning.

Management Issues: The Californiaquail’s popularity as a game bird, combinedwith the fact that much of its prime low-elevation habitat has been converted for otheruses, make it a higher priority for managementattention than mountain quail. Californiaquail do best in habitat mosaics that contain amix of open feeding areas and protectivebrushy cover. Small clumps of trees and shrubsscattered among open feeding areas provide amaximum of “edge” and are ideal for quailwhen water is available (Leopold 1977). Large,continuous blocks of a single vegetation typeprovide poor habitat. Thus large stands ofunbroken chaparral support low numbers ofquail.

The most commonly encountered habi-tat limitations for quail on national forestsystem lands are lack of water and lack of suit-able openings in the chaparral. Over the years,a large number of water developments (e.g.,guzzlers and catchments) have been installedto improve habitat for quail. Local chaptersof Quail Unlimited have been particularly in-strumental in organizing and implementingthese projects. Prescribed burning has beenused to create openings and increase age-classdiversity in the chaparral.

Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)Status and Distribution: This popular

game bird is native to much of North Americabut was not present in California at the timeof its discovery and settlement by Europeans(Burger 1954). Believing that the distributionof the wild turkey was restricted by geographi-cal barriers and not by a lack of suitable habitatin California, the State Division of Fish andGame began, in the early 1900s, to experi-ment with introductions of turkeys in variousparts of the state (Burger 1954). Most of theearly introductions failed, often because theplanted birds were too tame to survive for longin the wild. Yet, transplant and release tech-

niques have improved substantially over thelast thirty years and wild turkey populationsare now established in many parts of Califor-nia, particularly along the west side of theSierra Nevada and in the northern and cen-tral coast ranges (CDFG 1990).

Turkey populations have been well estab-lished for many years in the foothills ofMonterey, San Luis Obispo, and northernSanta Barbara counties (Smith and Browning1967; Garrett and Dunn 1981). The south-ernmost mountains of California are some ofthe last areas of potential habitat in the stateto have self-sustaining wild turkey popula-tions. A population was successfullyestablished in the San Bernardino Mountainsnorth of Lake Arrowhead in 1988. It is now avery popular resource that attracts huntersfrom throughout southern California andNevada (S. Loe, San Bernardino NF, pers.comm). In 1993, turkey populations were es-tablished on private lands at several locationsin the mountains of San Diego County. In-troductions are also proposed for theCleveland National Forest but have been de-layed by litigation over the potential impacton native species. However, the turkeysplanted on private lands have dispersed widelyand some presently occur on the ClevelandNational Forest.

Habitat: Turkeys can occur in a variety ofhabitats but are found primarily in pine, oak,and mixed hardwood/conifer woodlands. Im-portant habitat components include largeroost trees, openings that contain herbaceousplants, and the production of mast crops, es-pecially acorns. Water is a critical habitatrequirement for turkeys; they need to drinkat least once a day and thus require a depend-able year-round water supply (Schorger 1966).In southern California, the limited availabil-ity of year-round water substantially reducesthe amount of suitable habitat for this spe-cies. It is perhaps significant that the turkey’snative range corresponds quite closely withportions of the country that receive appreciableand dependable rainfall in the summermonths.

320

Management Issues: Little is known aboutthe effect of introduced turkey populations onCalifornia’s native flora and fauna. There areno published scientific studies that directlyaddress the subject; research on turkeys inCalifornia has focused on their numbers,movements, and food habitats (Schorger 1966;Smith and Browning 1967; Grenfell et al.1980). On one hand, it can be accurately ar-gued that there is no evidence that turkeys areimperiling native species. However, it can beequally well argued that there is no evidencedemonstrating that they do not cause harm.This uncertainty has led to recent controversyover the appropriateness of introducing tur-keys into areas where there are rare plants andanimals that could potentially be harmed (viaincreased competition or direct consumption).

A California Department of Fish andGame plan to introduce turkeys on publiclands in San Diego County has been stalledby a lawsuit, filed by the California NativePlant Society, over concerns about the impacton native species. These concerns have alsotriggered opposition from the California De-partment of Parks and Recreation. Turkeys thatwander onto Cuyamaca Rancho State Parkfrom nearby private lands are now beingtrapped and relocated outside the park’sboundaries (LaRue 1995). CDFG is currentlyconducting a study to assess the effect of in-troduced turkeys on native species. Hopefullythe results will be sufficiently conclusive toresolve this controversy.

This has been a frustrating process, par-ticularly for those who have long sought ahuntable turkey population in the San Diegoarea. It evokes deep-seated concerns amongsportsmen who have watched the wildlifemanagement agencies increasingly shift theirfocus to threatened and endangered species,often at the expense of game managementprograms. Unfortunately, this understandablefrustration has caused some individuals topublicly suggest that an anti-hunting agendais driving the land management agencies han-dling of the issue (Zieralski 1996). Thesebaseless allegations only serve to polarize rela-

tionships between individuals, organizations,and agencies that should be working togetherto gather the necessary information and findworkable solutions.

Band-tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata)Status and Distribution: The only pigeon

native to California—and not to be confusedwith rock pigeons found in urban areas—band-tails occur throughout the assessmentarea and can be abundant in lower montanewoodlands. The word “palomar” is Spanish for“pigeon roost,” and thus Palomar Mountainis named for this species. There is little cur-rent information on the status of band-tailedpigeon populations in southern California.Statewide Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) dataindicate a slight declining population trendsince 1980, but it is not statistically signifi-cant (Sauer et al. 1997).

Habitat: Band-tailed pigeons are closelytied to oaks, occurring both in pure stands andin conifer/oak woodlands. They spend thesummer months primarily in montane wood-lands but commonly move downslope into thefoothills in winter (Garrett and Dunn 1981).

Management Issues: Band-tailed pigeonsdo not receive a lot of management attention.A fast-moving bird found primarily in denselywooded areas, the band-tailed pigeon is oftendifficult to shoot. This probably explains whythe birds do not experience a lot of huntingpressure in the assessment area. Protection ofoak and conifer/oak woodlands is importantto this species.

MammalsThe most popular game and nongame

animals tend to be large mammals. Those thatgenerate the most interest in the assessmentarea are addressed below.

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)Status and Distribution: The mule deer

is the most important big game animal insouthern California. The annual fall deer huntattracts thousands of people to the mountainsand foothills. The California Department ofFish and Game’s management of this harvest

321

Chapter 6is aimed at providing a sustained yield andkeeping the deer population within the foodsupply of its natural habitat, thus preventingdamage to native habitats, agricultural crops,and orchards.

Recent harvest rates and CDFG popula-tion estimates (fig. 6.1) suggest that the deerpopulation is relatively stable in the southernhalf of the assessment area and increasing inthe northern half (Loft et al. 1998). CDFGestimates populations by geographic deer as-sessment units (DAUs). The northern half ofthe assessment area is in the “central coast(south)” unit or DAU #9, and the southernhalf is in the “south coast” unit or DAU #10(Loft et al. 1998). The central coast (south)unit is the only one in the state that showedan increasing population trend from 1990 to1996 (Loft et al. 1998). No explanation isgiven for this increasing trend.

The central coast unit is 15,600 squaremiles in size and the south coast unit encom-passes 7,800 square miles. The central coastunit is twice the size of the south coast unitbut reportedly has over four times as many

Figure 6.1. Deer population estimates for 1990–1996 by deer assessment unit (DAU)(from Loft et al. 1998).These units extend beyond our assessment area boundaries, but the Central Coast DAU encompasses the fournorthern mountain subareas (southern and northern Santa Lucia Ranges, southern Los Padres ranges, andCastaic Ranges) and the South Coast DAU encompasses the five southern subareas (San Gabriel, San Bernardino,San Jacinto and Santa Ana mountains, and San Diego ranges).

deer (fig. 6.1) (Loft et al. 1998). Longhurst etal. (1952) estimated that there were 79,000deer in the south coast unit in the late 1940s,but 1990s estimates range from 16,000 to24,000 (Loft et al. 1998). This decline is at-tributed primarily to large-scale habitat losson private lands as southern California’s hu-man population has grown.

Habitat: Characteristics of deer habitat usevary geographically. Deer are essentiallynonmigratory in the low-elevation mountainranges that lack extensive conifer forests (i.e.,the Santa Ana Mountains, San Diego County’smountains, and most of the Los Padres Na-tional Forest). In these areas deer reach theirhighest densities in oak woodlands, riparianareas, and along the margins of meadows andgrasslands. They occur in lower densities inopen scrub and young chaparral but tend toavoid dense brushfields. In chaparral habitats,deer thrive on early successional vegetationthat is prevalent for a period of one to ten yearsafter a fire (Bowyer 1981).

Bowyer (1984, 1986) studied habitat useof mule deer in a low-elevation mountain

Est

imat

ed N

umbe

r of

Dee

r

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

South CoastCentral Coast

322

range—on 4,900-foot East Mesa in theCuyamaca Mountains of San Diego County.He concluded that these southern mule deerare primarily a species of meadows, oaks, andpines. Meadows were found to be particularlyimportant fawning habitat. Deer grass(Muhlenbergia ridgens), a tall bunch grass, wasused extensively by fawns for concealmentcover. Adult deer typically bedded down inoak and pine stands.

The availability of free water during sum-mer was also a major factor regulating thedistribution of mule deer on East Mesa. Areasfarther than 0.6 miles from free water receivedlimited summer use. Areas without sources ofsummer water typically were devoid of fawns.Thus, habitat manipulations greater than 0.6miles from summer water sources are unlikelyto increase populations of mule deer (Bowyer1996).

In the higher elevation mountain ranges(i.e., Mount Pinos and the San Gabriel, SanBernardino, and San Jacinto mountains), deercommonly undertake altitudinal migrationsbetween summer and winter ranges.Nicholson (1995) and Nicholson et al. (1997)studied tradeoffs associated with migration ina mule deer population within the upper SantaAna River watershed in the San BernardinoMountains. In this area, deer exhibit a mixedpattern of migration—some migrate everyyear, others migrate in some years, and othersnever migrate.

Migratory deer move upslope for the sum-mer months, into well-watered habitats onnorth-facing slopes. These areas are dominatedby pine forest but also contain openings,meadows, and riparian habitats that the deerutilize. Nonmigratory deer spend the summeron lower slopes, primarily utilizing the lim-ited pine forests that occur there as well as oakwoodlands. In winter, deer congregate onlower, south-facing slopes where they heavilyutilize oak woodlands. Use of chaparral andsagebrush also increases in winter (Nicholsonet al. 1997).

Nicholson et al. (1997) suggest that mi-gration presents a tradeoff between optimizing

habitat quality and increasing risk of preda-tion. The upper-elevation summer habitatswere of higher quality, but moving to and fromthem each year increases the risk of predation.Monitoring of radio-collared deer found thatmigratory females did have higher mortalityrates than nonmigratory females and the mor-tality occurred exclusively during migration(Nicholson et. al. 1997).

The partial deer migration pattern ob-served by Nicholson in the San BernardinoMountains probably occurs in the other high-elevation mountains as well. Vaughn (1954)and Cronemiller and Bartholomew (1950)note the occurrence of upslope migrations inthe San Gabriel Mountains.

Management Issues: During all seasons,Nicholson (1995) found that deer largelyavoided areas regularly occupied by humans(e.g., campgrounds and summer cabins), tothe extent that they did not utilize habitatsthat would otherwise be of high quality (e.g.,riparian and meadows). He concluded thatmule deer primarily avoid negative features ofthe environment and consequently often avoidpotentially valuable resources at the same time.

The tendency of mule deer to avoid areaswhere there is frequent human use is a signifi-cant management issue. Of particularsignificance are meadow and riparian habitatsthat are preferred fawning areas and extremelylimited in extent. Such habitats are also desir-able locations for recreationists and, as thenumber of recreationists increase, it becomesmore difficult to find areas that do not receivefrequent human use. In the San Jacinto Moun-tains, Schaefer (1999) reported that deerreproductive rates in 1994 and 1995 were rep-resentative of a nutritionally stressedpopulation. This could be because they areselecting remote areas that do not containhigh-quality foraging habitat.

Bowyer and Bleich (1984) studied the ef-fects of cattle grazing on mule deer in themountains of San Diego County. They usedspotlight transects and pellet group counts tocompare deer abundance in two areas of simi-lar meadow habitat, one which was grazed(Laguna Mountain) and one which was not

323

Chapter 6(Cuyamaca Rancho State Park). They founddeer to be significantly more abundant in theungrazed meadows, with mean densities of twodeer per 100 hectares (240 acres) in the cattlegrazed meadows and twenty-two deer per 100hectares in the ungrazed meadows (Bowyerand Bleich 1984). The deer pellet group analy-sis had a similarly significant result.

Bowyer and Bleich (1984) attribute thereduced densities of deer in cattle-grazed ar-eas to changes in habitat condition. Importantforage plants for deer were either absent orreduced on the grazed range, and these areasalso lacked dense stands of deer grass, whichare known to provide valuable cover for doeswith fawns. Bowyer and Bleich (1980, 1984)used old photographs to determine that deergrass was also scarce in Cuyamaca’s meadowswhen they were grazed by livestock prior tothe state park’s establishment. The deer grassrecovered after cattle were removed. It shouldbe noted that when this study was done in1979, the intensity of grazing on LagunaMountain was much higher than it is now. Itwould be useful to repeat this study to com-pare ungrazed conditions with the moremoderate grazing regime that is in place to-day.

North of the assessment area, in the SanFrancisco Bay region, there is now consideredto be a deer over-abundance problem in manysuburban areas (McCullough et al. 1997).Evidently, deer in this area have become in-creasingly tolerant of human development andno longer avoid valuable resources in their vi-cinity. While this type of behavior has longbeen a management issue for white-tailed deer(Odocoileus virginianus) in the eastern UnitedStates, it is rarely reported for mule or black-tailed deer.

There are several reasons why it is unlikelythat the tolerance of human disturbance ex-hibited by deer in the San Francisco Bay areawill spread to more remote areas. First, theremaining wildland habitats in the bay areaare highly productive for deer but very lim-ited in size and surrounded by development.Thus, carrying capacity is easily exceeded anddeer move outside natural habitats into devel-

oped areas to survive. If they had other op-tions on where to go, they presumably wouldtry to avoid developed areas. Nicholson’s studyindicates that in remote areas, where they havethe ability to avoid developed areas, they tendto do so even if it means living in lower-qual-ity habitat.

Second, the habitat reserves in the bay areaare not open to hunting; thus, for many yearsnow, deer in those areas have not been hunted.This undoubtedly increases their ability tohabituate to nonthreatening human activities.Studies have shown that mule deer can ha-bituate to predictable events such as highwaytraffic, which they learn is not dangerous(Yarmoloy et al. 1988). However, in remoteareas where deer are annually hunted and theyhave choices on where to go, it is highly prob-able that they will continue to avoid areaswhere there is high human use.

Habitat Management: The most commonhabitat manipulation used to benefit deer isprescribed burning, usually in chaparral. Burn-ing creates openings in the brush andtemporarily increases the quality of deer for-age (Dasmann and Dasmann 1963). Afterobserving marked increases in deer harvestedin San Diego County following the Lagunafire in 1970, Bowyer (1981) developed deermanagement guidelines that emphasize burn-ing to rejuvenate browse.

Bowyer (1986) points out that the prox-imity of burned areas to other vegetative typespreferred by mule deer may be a critical factorin determining the response of deer popula-tions to alterations in old-growth chaparral.Short-lived increases in forage quality in areaswith few deer will do little to promote popu-lation growth. Thus, chaparral burns will bemost effective when they are conducted in ar-eas that adjoin meadow, oak, or pinevegetation types that contain summer watersources.

Based on the aforementioned work ofNicholson et al. (1997) and Bowyer and Bleich(1984), additional consideration should prob-ably be given to management of recreationfacilities and livestock grazing in key deerfawning areas.

324

The bighorn sheep population in the SanGabriel Mountains is, or at least was, consid-ered the largest single sheep population inCalifornia (DeForge 1980; Torres et al. 1994).

Figure 6.2. The distribution of Nelson’s bighorn sheep in the southern Los Padres, San Gabriel and SanBernardino mountains.

The San Rafael Peak/Cobblestone Moun-tain population was established in the 1980s

Nelson’s bighorn sheep(Ovis canadensis nelsoni)

Status and Distribution: The Nelson’s big-horn sheep is an animal of high public interestand is considered both a viability concern anda game animal in various parts of its range.Southern California populations are concen-trated in the eastern San Gabriel Mountainsand eastern San Bernardino Mountains, witha small reintroduced population around SanRafael Peak and Cobblestone Mountain in thesouthern part of the Los Padres National For-est (fig. 6.2) (Torres et al. 1994).

but is believed to be declining (Torres et al.1994). Originally considered to be a popula-tion of twenty-five to fifty animals, it is nowbelieved to support fewer than twenty-five ani-mals (fig. 6.3) (Torres et al. 1996a). Sheep inthe San Bernardino Mountains are consideredto be two separate populations, the larger inthe vicinity of San Gorgonio Mountain andthe other on the northern edge of the range indesert-facing canyons such as Furnace, Bousic,Arctic, and Marble canyons.

325

Chapter 6

Figure 6.3. The estimated size of Nelson’s bighorn sheep populations in the assessment area as reported byTorres et al. (1994, 1996).

Population Size Class

Population Status 1993 1995

San Gabriel Mountains Native > 300 (400-600) 101-150

San Gorgonio (San Bernardino Mts.) Native 101-150 101-150

Northern San Bernardino Mts. Native < 25 < 25

San Rafael Pk./Cobblestone Mtn. Reintroduced 25-50 < 25

Habitat: For detailed analyses of bighornsheep habitat utilization in the San GabrielMountains, see Light and Weaver (1973) andHoll and Bleich (1983). Escape terrain is iden-tified as the single most important habitatcomponent for sheep in these mountains. Es-cape terrain is defined as steep slopes (80percent or greater) with abundant rock out-crops and sparse shrub cover (canopy coverof 30 percent or less) (Holl and Bleich 1983).Sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains rangewidely in elevation—from 3,000 to 10,064

Figure 6.4. Bighorn sheep census data collected from 1977 to 1998 in the eastern San GabrielMountains. These data come primarily from annual aerial surveys conducted by the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game, although they also include some ground survey results.

sus data. However, census data collected sincethe early 1980s suggest that the San GabrielMountains’ bighorn sheep population has de-clined substantially over the last twenty years(fig. 6.4).

Several research projects in the 1970s and early1980s generated detailed information on thedistribution, abundance, and habitat relation-ships of sheep in this range (Weaver et al. 1972;Light and Weaver 1973; DeForge 1980;Harlacher 1980; Holl and Bleich 1983). Sev-eral distinct herds have been identified, withprimary concentrations in the Bear Creekdrainage (San Gabriel Wilderness), the upperEast Fork of the San Gabriel River and CattleCanyon (both in the Sheep Mountain Wil-derness), San Antonio Canyon, CucamongaCanyon, and the South and Middle Forks ofLytle Creek. Population estimates across thisarea ranged from 665 to 740 animals between1976 and 1982 (Holl and Bleich 1983). Theseestimates were extrapolated from aerial cen-

0

100

200

300

400

500

1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

Num

ber

of S

heep

Obs

erve

d

326

Habitat: Tule elk prefer open habitats and,where available, they tend to congregate inmarshy or ephemerally flooded areas that pro-vide high-quality forage. Historically, tule elk

feet (i.e., the summit of Mount San Antonio).During winter and spring, they are primarilydistributed in lower canyons between 3,000and 6,000 feet, where they occupy escarpmentchaparral, particularly ceanothus-mountainmahogany associations. In summer, bighornsheep use all elevations. Their distributionwithin an area is dependent on escape terrainand open vegetation types.

Management Issues: The primary factorsaffecting Nelson’s bighorn sheep populationsin the assessment area are human disturbance,vegetation condition, water availability, andpredation. Bighorn sheep are considered sen-sitive to the presence of humans, particularlyhigh levels of human activity in their line ofsight, and may abandon habitat due to hu-man encroachment (Light and Weaver 1973).The effects of human activity on sheep in theSan Gabriel Mountains have been studied byLight and Weaver (1973), Hamilton (1983),and Holl and Bleich (1983) with varying find-ings and conclusions. Light and Weaver(1973) suggest that increased human use inthe Baldy Notch area, particularly summer useconcentrated around the Mount Baldy SkiArea base facility, has caused sheep to avoidareas that were previously utilized. Conversely,Holl and Bleich (1983) suggest the absenceof sheep in that area may be more related tohabitat condition. However, both agree thatincreased summer use on the north-facing sideof Mount San Antonio would have a negativeeffect on bighorn sheep.

Torres et al. (1996a) attribute the pro-nounced decline of sheep in the San GabrielMountains to lack of recent fires, resulting inhabitat succession that has altered the abun-dance of suitable sheep habitat and enhancedthe vulnerability of sheep to mountain lionpredation. The high sheep numbers observedin the late 1970s coincide with recent fires inthose areas. As vegetation matures it becomesless palatable and there is a reduction in theamount of open, escape terrain. CDFG is cur-rently conducting an analysis of factors thatare potentially related to the population de-cline. These factors include changes in winter

range, disease, human activity, and drought(Torres et al. 1996a).

The apparent stability of the bighornpopulation around Mount San Gorgonio maybe related to the remoteness of the area. Mostof the occupied sheep habitat is within the SanGorgonio Wilderness Area, and the surround-ing area to the east and south is largelyunroaded. This population is deemed stableenough to support an extremely limited an-nual hunt. Since 1997, CDFG has issued onetag per year to hunt bighorn sheep in the SanGorgonio area.

Tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes)Status and Distribution: Tule elk were

once abundant in California’s Central Valleyand adjacent valleys and foothills. However,the fertile valley habitats they preferred havebeen almost entirely converted to agriculturalland, and the tule elk now occurs only in es-tablished reserves and in areas outside or onthe fringe of its native range where introducedpopulations have persisted (e.g., the OwensValley and Point Reyes) (McCullough et al.1996). Approximately twenty-two tule elk popu-lations can currently be found in scattered areasacross California, three of which are in or nearthe assessment area in San Luis Obispo andMonterey counties (McCullough et al. 1996).

Tule elk herds occur (1) in valleys on bothsides of the southern half of the La PanzaRange, (2) on Camp Roberts along the Sali-nas River, and (3) within Fort Hunter Liggetton the eastern side of the northern Santa LuciaRange. (fig 6.5). Population estimates from1994 indicate that the La Panza herd is thebiggest in the state, with between 550 and 600animals. There are an estimated 200 to 250elk on Fort Hunter Liggett and 90 to 100 onCamp Roberts (McCullough et al. 1996). Allthree of these populations were established inthe 1980s through relocation of elk from theTupman Reserve, Owens Valley, and PotterValley.

327

Chapter 6

Figure 6.5. The general areas where tule elk occur in the central Coast Ranges.

sizes in those areas to minimize habitat degra-dation and damage to agricultural products,and (3) maintaining genetic diversity in theremaining populations, which are relativelysmall and isolated (McCullough et al. 1996).The La Panza herd utilizes valley habitats thatare on private lands. Carefully regulated fallhunts are held at La Panza and Fort HunterLiggett to maintain herd sizes at levels theavailable habitat can support.

used upland foothill areas during favorableplant-growth periods, and most calves wereborn in those areas in March and April. Asthe upland plants dried up, the elk returnedto bottom lands where they remained for mostof the year (McCullough et al. 1996). Thispattern still occurs today in a few of the largerareas where elk can make seasonal movements.However, agricultural crops such as alfalfa areoften utilized now in place of marshy bottomlands.

Management Issues: The primary man-agement issues for tule elk are (1) ensuringthe long-term availability of large enoughblocks of suitable habitat, (2) managing herd

328

Black bear (Ursus americanus)

Status and Distribution: Black bears re-portedly did not occur in the assessment areawhen the California grizzly bear still inhab-ited the region (Storer and Tevis 1978). Afterthe grizzly was extirpated around the turn ofthe century, black bears started to appear inVentura and Santa Barbara counties (Grinnellet al. 1937). The Department of Fish andGame supplemented this natural range expan-sion by moving twenty-eight black bears fromthe Sierra Nevada into the San Gabriel andSan Bernardino mountains during the early1930s (Burgduff 1935; Vaughan 1954). Thecurrent black bear population in the San

Figure 6.6. Distribution of black bears in the coastal mountains of southern California.

Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains is be-lieved to be primarily descended from thosesupplemental introductions. Black bears ap-parently migrated across San Gorgonio Passinto the San Jacinto Mountains, where a smallbear population remains.

Black bears now occur throughout the as-sessment area with the exception of the SantaAna Mountains and the mountains in SanDiego County (fig. 6.6). They are most com-mon in montane conifer forests in the SanBernardino Mountains, San Gabriel Moun-tains, and the Mount Pinos/Pine Mountainregion. Black bear populations are reportedto be increasing statewide (CDFG 1998), and

329

Chapter 6

Habitat: Black bears occupy a variety ofhabitats, but populations are densest in mon-tane forests with a wide variety of seral stages(CDFG 1998). In the southern Californiamountains, black bears will also follow ripar-ian corridors down into low-elevation habitats.Habitat diversity is important to bears, whicheat herbaceous vegetation in the spring, car-rion and invertebrates in down woody materialin the summer, and mast from shrubs and oaksin the fall.

A number of studies of black bear habitatutilization have been done in the assessmentarea, all by graduate students at CaliforniaState Polytechnic University, Pomona. Moss(1972) and Stubblefield (1992) studied blackbear ecology in the San Gabriel Mountains.Novick investigated habitat preferences anddenning characteristics of black bears in theSan Bernardino Mountains (Novick 1979;

hunter take figures from southern Californiasuggest they are either stable or increasing inmost of the assessment area (fig. 6.7) (CDFG1998). Some recent bear sightings in themountains of San Diego County suggest thatthey may be dispersing south from the SanJacinto Mountains.

Novick et al. 1981), and Boyer (1976) studiedfood habitats of black bears in the Banning Can-yon area of the San Bernardino Mountains.

Management Issues: Black bears have be-come a management problem in somerecreation areas (e.g., Forest Falls and BartonFlats in the San Bernardino Mountains). In-dividual bears become habituated to feedingin these areas, particularly where food andtrash are not properly managed and kept inbear-proof containers. This has led to increasedhuman-bear encounters and even several well-publicized “attacks” where people werethreatened or injured by bears who were ex-hibiting aggressive behavior or enteringoccupied tents in search of food.

Black bears also periodically wander intoresidential areas at the base of the mountains,particularly along the front of the San GabrielMountains. These incidents generate a lot ofmedia attention and are potentially danger-ous, particularly if a disoriented bear becomescornered and reacts aggressively. However, theincidents which have occurred to date havenot resulted in human injuries and Fish andGame wardens are usually able to scare thebear back up into the mountains.

Figure 6.7. Hunter take of black bear from 1990 to 1997 in southern California counties (data from CDFG1998).

Num

ber

Take

n by

Hun

ters

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Los AngelesRiversideSan BernardinoSanta BarbaraVentura

330

Habitat: Wild pigs occur in riparian ar-eas, oak woodlands, grasslands, and mixedhardwood-conifer forests. Mast crops

Mountain lion (Puma concolor)

Status and Distribution: Mountain lionsoccur in all of the mountain ranges within theassessment area. Circumstantial evidence sug-gests that lions have become more numerousin California in the past several decades (Torreset al. 1996b). This widely suspected, butpoorly documented, population increase hasbeen linked to increased predation of bighornsheep and deer and increases in human-lionencounters. On the other hand, mountain li-ons are considered imperiled in some ofsouthern California’s highly fragmented wild-lands. Beier (1993) conducted a radio-trackingstudy of mountain lions in the Santa AnaMountains and Chino Hills. He found thatthe cougar population in this area consists ofonly about twenty adults and is in danger ofdying out if movement corridors are not sus-tained to allow immigration from PalomarMountain. Termed the “Pechanga Corridor,”this habitat linkage between mountain rangesis primarily private land.

Habitat: Mountain lions are habitat gen-eralists. They tend to be most common in thehabitat types preferred by their primary prey—mule deer. Within these habitat types, lionstend to prefer rocky cliffs, ledges, and otherareas that provide cover (Dixon 1982). Theyhave extremely large area requirements; in theSanta Ana Mountains, only about twenty adultlions occupy over 800 square miles of wild-land habitat (Beier 1993).

Management Issues: Management ofmountain lions in California has become acontroversial and politicized issue. Much ofthe controversy centers on whether regulatedmountain lion hunts should be allowed.Mountain lion hunting has not occurred inCalifornia since 1972 (Torres et al. 1996b).In 1990, a state ballot initiative (Proposition117) was passed into law designating themountain lion as a “specially protected mam-mal.” This designation allows for the issuanceof depredation permits but does not permit ahunting season.

There has recently been an increase indepredation incidents and in the number of

mountain lion attacks on humans (Torres etal. 1996b). From 1910 through 1985, therewere no verified mountain lion attacks onhumans in California. Since 1986, there havebeen nine verified attacks on humans, withtwo fatal attacks on adult women in 1994(Torres et al. 1996b). At the same time, thereis legitimate concern about the long-term vi-ability of some mountain lion populations(e.g., in the Santa Ana Mountains) that arebeing isolated by urban encroachment (Beier1993).

Nowhere is the management dilemma bet-ter exemplified than in the mountains andfoothills of southern California. While theircontinued existence is threatened in some partsof the region, lions are also causing some seri-ous problems. In 1986, two nonfatal lionattacks on small children in Caspers Wilder-ness Regional Park (Santa Ana Mountains)resulted in the closure of that park to childrenfor several years. In 1994, a woman was at-tacked and killed by a mountain lion whilehiking in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park (SanDiego County). In 1995, a man was attackedbut escaped injury while mountain biking inthe Angeles National Forest (San GabrielMountains). Pet depredations have also in-creased along the wildland-urban interface(Torres et al. 1996b) and there is evidence thatlion predation is having a negative impact onPeninsular Ranges’ bighorn sheep populations(USDI Bureau of Land Management et. al.1996).

Wild pig (Sus scrofa)Status and Distribution: The wild pig is

an introduced species that has become wellestablished in Monterey, San Luis Obispo, andSanta Barbara counties (fig. 6.8). In MontereyCounty, wild pigs have been reported at den-sities of 1.3 to 2.1 per square mile (Pine andGerdes 1973). Increases in hunter take overthe past six years (fig. 6.9) suggest that the pigpopulation may be gradually increasing.

331

Chapter 6

Figure 6.8. Distribution of wild pigs in and around the assessment area.

Management Issues: Wild pigs are a fairlypopular game animal, but there is also con-cern about the habitat damage they cause insome areas. Pigs can become abundant in somehabitats. Where they occur in high numbers,their tendency to dig up the ground in searchof food can cause major disturbance to soiland vegetation. They also compete with na-tive wildlife for food, particularly for mastcrops such as acorns. Wild pigs can becomedifficult to manage in areas where they havebecome abundant. A year-round hunting sea-son, with no limits on the number that can be

taken, typically has little effect on the popula-tion size.

Wild horse (Equus caballos)Status and Distribution: A wild horse

population exists in the interior valleys on theeast side of the southern Santa Lucia Range(fig. 6.10). Referred to as the Black Mountainherd, in 1996 it reportedly consisted of eighty-one horses (BLM 1996).

Habitat: Wild horses can occur in a vari-ety of habitats, but they typically prefer opengrasslands.

Management Issues: The Wild Horse andBurro Protection Act of 1971 provides

particularly acorns, are an important food(Zeiner et al. 1990).

332

Wild burro ( Equus asinus )Status and Distribution: A burro popu-

lation of approximately fifty to sixty animalscurrently exists in the eastern San BernardinoMountains (fig. 6.10). This population is or-ganized into multiple loose herds that stayprimarily in wildland habitats east of BaldwinLake. Prior to a roundup in 1997, several large

direction for managing wild horse popula-tions. This legislation directs federal landmanagement agencies to maintain herd sizesat sustainable levels while minimizing resourceand property damage. When herds become toolarge, animals are captured, transported toholding facilities, and ultimately sold at pub-lic auctions. The Bureau of Land Management(BLM) is in charge of the wild horse and burroadoption program.

Because of the limited amount of suitablehabitat at Black Mountain, roundups are heldapproximately every two years to keep the herdsize at or below twenty animals. About two tofour horses are rounded up each time andtransferred to BLM facilities for adoption. Thismanagement strategy appears to be workingwell, since the habitat on Black Mountain isnot being degraded by the current level of use(K. Cooper, Santa Lucia Ranger district, pers.comm.).

burro herds had become habituated to humansand taken up residence in housing tracts onthe east side of the Big Bear Valley. In Augustand September of 1997, seventy-seven of these“town burros” were rounded up and taken outof the area.

Habitat: Burros are primarily found inarid desert-montane habitats. They arepportunistic herbivores that roam across largeareas in search of food resources.

Management Issues: The Wild Horse andBurro Protection Act of 1971 provides direc-tion for managing wild burro populations.This legislation directs that burros removedfrom the wild are to be cared for and put upfor adoption at public auctions.

Wild burros roaming residential areas inthe Big Bear Valley have been a managementproblem for many years. These burros havebeen adored and fed by some residents anddisliked by others, primarily because of theirhabit of knocking over trash cans and dispers-ing the contents. Their presence along highlytraveled roads also created a dangerous safetyproblem for both burros and people; on aver-age, thirteen burros a year were hit and killedby vehicles in the Big Bear area (USDA, ForestService 1998). Fortunately no people have beenkilled in these accidents, but the potential isclearly there.

Figure 6.9. Hunter take of wild pigs from 1992 to 1998 in southern California counties (data from CDFG1999b).

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98

MontereySan Luis ObispoSanta Barbara

Num

ber

Take

n by

Hun

ters

333

Chapter 6

After a lengthy environmental review andpublic involvement period, the Forest Serviceconducted an extensive roundup of the town-habituated burros in 1997. The animals weretaken to BLM holding facilities andsubequently put up for adoption. This actionhas greatly reduced the number of burros hitby vehicles; only one has been hit since theroundup.

Figure 6.10. The general areas where wild horses and wild burros occur in the coastal mountains of southernCalifornia.