r. krawsman, · 1.5-year-old ram averaged 38.6 and 38.7 c over 2 successive days (fig. 5). body...

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

MARK C. W A L L A ~ Edilorialilssistant. School ofRencwable Natural Resources, University of Arizona, Tucson, A Z 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 Contnbutions to the Desert Bighorn Council Transactions" in the back of this volume.

illustrations by Pat Hnnsen. Prinlcd by Allen Press, Inc., 1041 New Hampshire Sheet, Lnmcnce, KS 66044.

Desert Bighorn Council 1989 Transactions

A Compilation of Papers Presented and Submitted at the 33rd Annual Meeting

5-7 April 1989, Grand Junction, Colorado

Editorial Board: Paul R. Krausman, Editor Mark C. Wallace, Editorial Assistant

Copies Available for $12.00

by writing the Desert Bighorn Council

1500 N. Decatur Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 891 08

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TECHNICAL REPORTS

REMOTE BODY TEMPERATURE AND HEART RATE MONITORING IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas D. Bunch, Gar W. Workman, and Robert J. Callan. 1

BEDSITE CHARACTERISTICS OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE SUPERSTITION MOUNTAINS, ARIZONA Brian F. Wakeling and William H. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

STATUS REPORTS AND COMMENTS

STATUS O F BIGHORN SHEEP IN ARIZONA, 1988 RaymondM.Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STATUS O F BIGHORN SHEEP IN CALIFORNIA, 1988 Richard A. Weaver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STATUS O F DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP IN NEVADA, 1988 Daniel Delaney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STATUS O F BIGHORN SHEEP IN NEW MEXICO, 1988 Amy S. Elenowitz and Doug Humphreys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SKILLS NEEDED IN TODAY'S WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Donald J. Armentrout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1989 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-YEAR INDEX, 1957-1986 21

1989 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

REMOTE BODY TEMPERATURE AND HEART RATE MONITORING IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP

THOMAS D. BUNCH.' Departmcnt of Animal, Dairy and Veterinary Sciences, Utah State Univcrsity, Logan, UT 84322-4815

GAR W. WORKMAN, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah Stale Univcrsity, Logan, UT 84322-5210

ROBERT J. CALLAN. Departmcnt of Animal, Dairy and Veterinary Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-48 15

Descn Bighorn Cormc. Trans. 33-5,

Abslrocl: Body temperature and heart rate (HR) radio transmitters were inscrtcd intra-abdominally in 2 Mexican desert bighorn rams (Ovis carraderlsis ~~lesicarto). We monitored body tempcrature and HR with a Telonics receiver (Telonics, Inc, Mesa, Ariz.) and interprctcd data with a DATACOL 2.0 system (J. Stuan Enterprises, Oceanside, Calif.) in an Apple IIc computer. Mean 24-hour body temperatures were 38.6 C for both rams when ambient temperatures ranged from 20 to 35 C. Lowcst temperaturcs occurred from 0700-1500 hours. When ambicnt temperatures runged betwccn - 18 and -30 C, body temperatures decreased by > I C (.P = 37.3 C). Highest tempwaturcs occurred betaren 0600 and 2000 hours. The adjusted 24-hour HR was 65 and 55 (beats1 min), respcctively, for the 1.5- and 2.5-year-old rams, respectively. Both rams had the highest HR betwccn 0800 and 2000 hours. Of sevcral disturbances studied, driving a motorcyclc past their pen had the least effect on hearc rate and a person running by or standing in their pen had the greatest cfkcl. Walking past the pen, driving a truck part the pen and driving a truck past the pen and intermittently blowing the horn elicited intermediate increases in heart rate.

Kej, ~sords: body temperature, desert bighorn shcep, disturbance, heart rate, radio transmitters.

Body temperature has been correlated to health and disease related physiological events (Seawright el al. 1977, Scawright elal. 1978, Geor- gieva elal. 1986). Elevatcd temperaturcs orten precede behavioral changes and the febrile curve is characteristic of specific disease. The body tcm- perarure ofprongborn antelope (hli/ocnpra n~i~er icaf~o) experimentally inoculated with leptospirosis initially increased by 3 C (Lonsdale et al. 1979). Febrile response has also been used to evaluate vaccincs when immunity was challenged with a virus of known virulence (Seawwright el al. 1976).

Continuous monitoring ofheart rate has bcen used to indicate energy expenditure (Webster 1967, Holtcn et al. 1976, Licb 1981, Richards and Lawrence 1984). The use of radio telemetry to record continuous physiological data is also valuable for studying arousal and disease in unrestrained wild animals. Studies uf lice-living birds (Kanwishcr ct al.

I Present address: Department of Animal. Dairy and Veterinary Sci- ences, Utah State University, Logan 84322-4815.

Fig. 1. Hcnn rate (uppcr) and fcntpcraturc (lower) lrnnsnlilfcrs.

1978) and ungulates (Roshchevskii el al. 1976, Ward and Cupal 1979, MacArthur ct al. 1979, MacArthur etal. 1982) have shown that HR is a sensitive indicator ofarousal, which is an immediate elfect ofan alarm reaction to a disturbance (Jenkins and Krugcr 1975, Fowler 1978). Thompson ct al. (1 9681, Cherkovich and Tatoyan (1973). and Mom el al. (1978) have shown that HR increases in response to auditory or visual disturbance in the absence ofovcrt behavioral changes. A linear relationship betwccn HR and blood cortisol lcvcls in Rocky Mountain bighorn sh& (0. c. corladensis) exposed to various strcssors indicated that remote monitoring of cardiac frequency can predict adrenal func- tion (Harlow el al. 1987). Cortisol slimulatcs protein catabolism, is glyconeogcnic and lipolytic, and has anti-inflammatory and immunologic properties (Fowler 1978). Our objectives wcrc to dearmine basal body tempcrature and HR in captive desert bighorn rams, idenli@ elTects of ambient tempcrature on body tempemturc, and monitor cardiac response to transient disturbance.

We thank the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Phoenix Zoo, Arizona for providing the rams used in this study. The United Stales Air Force provided funding. This manuscript is Utah State University Experiment Station Journal Paper 3800.

g 2 Tcntperoture tronsnritfcr being inscncd into nbdonrinal cmit)~ of descrl bighorn slrccp. Thcpol~~rop~~1clencporreBprol~ides a suturing base for arlochn~cnr ro the bod], lunll.

2 REMOTE MONITORING IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP. Bunch et al,

F i g 3. H m r r rnrc trnnsnritrer is placed nntcrior to the fcntpernfurc rrnnsmincr with wire knds posifioned croninllj~.

A4ETHODS

We obtained 2 Mexican desert biehorn rams (1.5 and 2.5 vrl from . . the Phoenix Zoo. Arizona and maint&d them at the Utah State Uni- versity Green Canyon Ecoloev Ccnter. Wc inserted bodv temocrature .. and liean rille tranrmiti~.rs ~nlra-ahdom~nall!. Signal5 nerc recr'ivc.l with 3 Tclonti\ \lodcl '1'lt-2 ruca\.erand inwrprt1r.d nith a U T A C O L 2.0 system in an Apple ile computer.

Body temperature transmitters (1. Stuart Enterprises, Oceanside, Cal- ir.) were calibrated and checked before use. Transmitters were inserted into a polypropylene pouch, which provided a suturing base, and then soaked in 1% Nolvasan for 30 minutes orior to surcerv (Fir. I). - . -

Rams were placcd mdlvldually in transpon crates and depnvcd o r food and water for 24 hours onor lo sureem. Proohvlacl~c a n l ~ b t o t m - . . . wcrc administered 5-10 minutes before surgery.

Anesthesia was induced with a mixture ofGuafenisen (5%). ketaminc

closed circular inhalation system. The hair rrom the ventral abdomen and right thorax was clipped. The

exposed skin was scrubbed with povidone iodine antiseptic. A 9-cm vcntral midline abdominal incision was made through the skin and linca alba just cranial to the umbilicus. The temperature transmitter was placcd caudally and sutured into the body wall closure with chromic

Fig. 4. Lend lljirfs arc p11~sed S N ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M U S I J ' with Allis I~SSUC forceps bv nmnkinr. 1.5 cnr skin incirions even, IS cnt olonp the roulc of~lacernent.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Houa

Fig. 5. Body rcntperortrrc of o captive 1.5-ycnr-old Mexican desert bighorn rant owr ? successive 24-horrrpcriods (X = 38.6 i- 0.008 (SEI and 38.7 r 0.05. for periods, respecrircly).

catgut (Fig. 2). The heart rate transmitter was vlaced antcrior to the . . body temperature transmitter and also sutured into the closure (Fig. 3). Short 1.5 cm skin incisions werc made every 15 cm along the route or . placement of the reference and monitor lead wires. Thc leads were passed subcutaneously by use of Allis tissue rorccps. The reference lead terminal was placed midway on the sternum (Fig. 4). The monitor lcad terminal was placed near the third to last rib, approximately two-thirds dorsally on the right thorax. This placement approximates n standard base apex electrocardiography lead and provides the most consistent l u r l raw signal i\hilc thcanimd IS standingor I)~ng~ter!ral d d i u o n a l bod! surface ounlact wa\ ~nadr. I I ~ !$rapping the loupd tcnnmal clid ofthe lcad wire several times with stainless steel suture. This also helped lo hold the leads in place. Skin incisions were closed with 2.0 and3.0 synthetic absorbable suture in a subcuticular pattern.

Both rams were housed in a 14- x 14-m pen. We measured body temperature at I -hour intervals. Mcan body temperature was calculated from 2 conseculivc 24-hour periods.

Wc monitored HR over 3 successive 24-hour periods. The adjusted heart ralc (AHR) was based on the lowest value at each I-hour interval over the 3-day monitoring pcriod.

Fig. 6. Bodje rcnrperorurcs of 2 copti~v Mexicon descn bighorn rants unch arcrogcd over 2 suecessivc 24-hour periods (3 = 38.6 i 0.05 [SE] and 38.6 i 0.07 for rant I [+I ond 2 1% rcspcctirclj~.

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1989 TRANSACTIONS 3

Hours

Fig. 7 . Body temperature of a captive 2.5-year-old Mexican desert bighorn ram over 2 successive 24-hourperiods (3 = 37.3 + 0.09 [SE]) when the ambient temperatures ranged from -18 to - 30 C.

Disturbance included: a person walking or running past the pen, a motorcycle or truck driven past the pen, a truck driven past the pen with intermittent blowing of horn, and a person entering the pen and standing by the entrance for 10 seconds. Each was assigned an index value, which was calculated by multiplying the disturbance heart rate (DHR, values exceeding the AHR) by time (sec) of DHR - AHR x time (sec) of DHR t 1,000.

RESULTS

Mean body temperatures were determined in September when ambient temperatures ranged from 20 to 35 C. Body temperatures of the 1.5-year-old ram averaged 38.6 and 38.7 C over 2 successive days (Fig. 5). Body temperatures were lowest from 0700 to 1500 hours. Body temperatures that slightly exceeded 39 C occurred during the early morning and late evening. A similar temperature profile was observed in the 2.5-year-old ram. The mean diurnal temperature variations for 2 days were similar for both rams (Fig. 6). Mean temperatures were 38.6 C for the 1.5- and 2.5-year-old rams, respectively. Body temperature varied considerably during colder ambient temperatures. During January, when

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hours

Fig. 9 . Adjusted hourly heart rate (bpm) of 2 captive Mexican desert bighorn rams (.t = 65 2 1.4 [SE] [+I and 55 -t 2.2 [a] bpm).

the high and low temperatures ranged from - 18 to -30 C, mean body temperatures decreased by > 1 C (Fig. 7). Temperatures ranged from 36.2 to 38.1 (X = 37.3 C). The diurnal profile characteristic ofthe warmer ambient temperatures was reversed during the cold period with increased body temperatures occuning during late morning and early afternoon.

Heart rates were extremely variable over a 3-day period. Twenty-four hour mean rates for the 1.5-year-old ram were 57, 72 and 89 beats/ minute (bpm) (Fig. 8), and 64,65 and 90 bpm for the 2.5-year-old ram. The adjusted diurnal HR pattern was similar for both rams (Fig. 9). The adjusted 24-hour mean HR was 65 and 55 bpm for the 1.5- and 2.5-year-old rams, respectively. Both rams had the greatest HR activity between 0800 to 2000 hours, when most activity occurred.

Although the AHRs were 55 and 65, for disturbance (Table 1) 70 bpm was set as the lower limit because the rams were aware of people during the disturbance trials and their sustained HRs were 5-1 5 bpm greater than the AHRs. A motorcycle driven past their pen had the least effect (Fig. 10); the rams had 1 major HR spike of short duration. The younger ram was not disturbed when a person walked by the pen; however, the disturbance index in the older ram was 1.95. The response was greater when someone ran by the pen compared to someone walking

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hours

Fig. 8. Hourly heart rate (beatshin [bpm]) of a captive 1.5-year-old Mexican desert bighorn ram over 3 successive 24-hour periods (.t = 89 2 1.7 [SE], 72 2 2.2, and 57 k 1.5 bprn for periods I [+I, 2 [o] and 3 [o], respectively).

65 c Signal reception intervals over 34 seconds

Fig. 10. Heart rate (bpm) of a captive 1.5-year-old Mexican desert bighorn ram in response to a motorcycle driven past pen.

4 REMOTE MONITORING IN DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP a Bunch et a/.

60 0 Signal reception intervals over 167 seconds

Fig. 11. Heart rate (bpm) of a captive 1.5-year-old Mexican desert bighorn ram in response to person running past pen.

by the pen. The 1.5-year-old ram was the most disturbed by a person running by the pen (Fig. 11). The rams responded more intensely to the truck passing than when the truck passed while blowing the horn. This difference was probably a result of the rams becoming habituated to the truck. The HR spikes (Fig. 12) are a response to intermittent horn blowing. Both rams were aroused when a person entered their pen (Fig. 13). The older ram was most disturbed by someone entering the pen (disturbance index 5.45); this was the event that precipitated the second most intense response in the 1.5-year-old ram.

Remote temperature monitoring has several benefits. Fever can be a symptom of infection or sickness; electronic detection and monitoring body temperature can be a valuable diagnostic aid in studying the onset of an infectious disease. Temperature telemetry can be used to monitor hyperthermic responses to vaccines. Electronic temperature monitoring can also be used to detect stress, which if accompanied by a redistri- bution of blood from the skin and splanchnic regions into the major muscles, changes body temperature. In housed cattle, Seawright et al. (1977) reported that skin temperature dropped abruptly and internal body temperature increased whenever the caretaker was present. We

6 5 [ 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~

Signal reception intervals over 32 seconds

Fig. 12. Heat? rate (bpm) of a captive 1.5-year-old Mexican desert bighorn ram in response to truck driven past pen while blowing horn.

6 0 t r

Signal reception intervals over 101 seconds

Fig. 13. Heart rate (bpm) of a captive 2.5-year-old Mexican desert bighorn ram in response to person entering pen for 10 seconds.

observed that body temperature often increased by 1 C when a desert bighorn ram was captured, although the animal was captured quickly and restrained for only a few minutes. Temperature telemetry can also be used to monitor thermoregulatory response to ambient temperature. We observed that desert bighorn rams mean body temperature dropped > 1 C during extremely cold periods. Remote electronic temperature sensing may also be used to monitor and study reproductive processes. Body temperature increases during ovulation and at the onset of par- turition in domestic sheep (Hecker 1983). Temperature telemetry may therefore be used to determine the optimal time for artificial breeding.

MacArthur et al. (1979) reported that heart rate of mountain sheep often changed in the absence of overt movement. MacArthur et al. (1982) reported that the duration of the change in HR corresponded to overt behavioral reaction to harrassing stimuli, but felt that HR telemetry was a more objective means of quantifying arousal responses to harassment than behavior. MacArthur et al. (1982) also believed HR telemetry permits fine tuning of response to stressors. We observed that HR increased by 5-1 5 bpm whenever the rams were aware of people, a response not usually accompanied by an overt behavior. This response would have probably been more intense if the rams had not been con- ditioned to captivity and the presence of humans. Both were born in captivity at the Phoenix Zoo and were accustomed to people.

The ram's most overt behavioral response and greatest HR occurred when a person ran by or stood in the pen. Rams were less disturbed when a person walked past their pen probably because they had more time to assess activity. Rams became very alarmed when someone entered their pen, perhaps because the pen was relatively small and they could not retreat > 13 m. They responded less intensely when someone approached outside the pen, an indication that the pen offered security. The rams responded immediately to vehicles; their response might have been greater if they were not accustomed to motor vehicles associated with the caretaker. In all trials HR provided an objective method to quantify disturbance.

Harlow et al. (1987) found that HR is a predictor of blood cortisol changes in response to acute stressors and thought that changes in glu- cocorticoid concentrations were the best parameters to evaluate a stress response. Fitting sheep with heart rate telemeters and estimating daily and seasonal cortisol levels could provide an accurate method of as- sessing response to stress.

Radiotelemetry has great potential in the study of biologic processes and responses in desert bighorn sheep, particularly in evaluating the impact of human intrusion in the sheep's domain. It may also help elucidate the dynamics and causes of dieoffs. Fitting animals with these instruments could be a method to monitor the health of a population and to provide early warnings of epizootics.


Table 1. Heart rate (bpm) response of 2 captive desert bighorn rams to disturbance.

Type of disturbanceo

WB RB M T T H EP . Distur-

Animal Timeb bance no. f SE 3 SE P SE 3 SE x SE P SE (sec) indexc

disturbance: WB = person walks by pen, RB = person runs by pen, M = motorcycle driven by pen, T = truck driven by pen, TH = truck driven by pen with horn blowing, and EP = standing within pen for 10 seconds.

"Time (sec) heart rate is > 70 bpm. elevated heart rate x time (sec) - adjusted heart rate x time

cDisturbance index: 1,000

LITERATURE CITED

Cherkovich, G. M. and S. K. Tatoyan. 1973. Heart rate (radiotele- metric registration) in macaques and baboons according to dominant- submissive rank in a group. Folia Primatol. 20:265-273.

Fowler, M. E. 1978. Restraint and handling of wild and domestic animals. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames. 332pp.

Georgieva, D., J. Kostov, and D. Stoikov. 1986. Clinical radiotelemetry and morphologic studies with lambs experimentally infected with cysticercus-ovis. Vet. Med. Nauki 23: 17-26.

Harlow, H. J., E. T. Thorne, E. S. Williams, E. L. Beldin, and W. A. Gem. 1987. Cardiac frequency: a potential predictor of blood cortisol levels during acute and chronic stress exposure in Rocky Moun- tain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis). Can. J. Zool. 65: 2028-2034.

Hecker, J. F. 1983. The sheep as an experimental animal. Academic Press, New York, NY. 21 6pp.

Holten, J. B., W. E. Urban, H. H. Hayes, and H. Silver. 1976. Pre- dicting metabolic rate from telemetered heart rate in white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 40:626-629.

Jenkins, W. L. and J. M. Kruger. 1975. Modem concepts of the animals physiological response to stress. Pages 172-183 In E. Yound, ed. Capture and care of wild animals. Ralph Curtis Books, Hollywood, Fla.

Kanwisher, J. W., T. C. Williams, J. M. Teal, and K. 0. Lawson, Jr. 1978. Radiotelemetry of heart rates from free-ranging gulls. Auk 95: 288-293.

Lieb, J. M. 198 1. Activity, heart rate, and associated energy expenditure of elk in Western Montana. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Montana, Missoula. 200pp.

Lonsdale, E. M., B. Bradach, and E. T. Thorne. 1979. A telemetry system to determine body temperature in pronghorn antelope. J. Wildl. Manage. 35:747-75 1.

MacArthur, R. A., R. H. Johnson, and V. Geist. 1979. Factors influencing heart rate in free-ranging bighorn sheep: a physiological ap-

proach to the study of wildlife harassment. Can. J. Zool. 57:2010- 2021.

MacArthur, R. A., V. Geist, and R. H. Johnson. 1982. Cardiac and behavior responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:35 1-358.

Moen, A. N., M. A. DellaFera, A. L. Hiller, and B. A. Buxton. 1978. Heart rates of white-tailed deer fawns in response to recorded wolf howls. Can. J. Zool. 56: 1207-1210.

Richards, J. I. and P. R. Lawrence. 1984. The estimation of energy expenditure from heart rate measurements in working oxen and buf- falo. Agric. Sci. Camb. lO2:7 1 1-7 17.

Roshchevskii, M. P., N. I. Konovalov, and V. S. Beznosikov. 1976. Cardiac component of emotional stress in elk (Alces alces) and rein- deer (Rangifer tarandus). Zh. Evol. Biokhim. Fisiol. 12:381-384.

Seawright, G. L., W. M. Sanders, and R. V. Deusen. 1976. Use of remote ear canal temperature measurements for evaluating viral vaccines in cattle. Pages 191-194 In T. B. Fryer, H. A. Miller, and H. Sander, eds. Biotelemetry 111. Academic Press, Inc., New York, N.Y.

, D. M. Holm and W. M. Sanders. 1977. Remote temperature monitoring and electronic identification in food animals. Pages 42- 47 In Int. Symp. Vet. Diagn. Lab. Guanojuato, GTO Mex. -- , and - . 1978. Use of a multiple-animal temper-

ature-telemetry system for studying infectious disease of cattle. Int. Symp. Biotelem. Garmisch-Partenkirchen. 4:1-4.

Thompson, R. D., C. V. Grant, E. W. Pearson, and G. W. Corner. 1968. Cardiac response of starlings to sound: effects of lighting and grouping. Am. J. Physiol. 214:41-44.

Ward, A. L. and J. J. Cupal. 1979. Telemetered heart rate of three elk as affected by activity and human disturbance. Pages 47-56 In Dis- persed Recreational and Natural Resource Management. Symp. Utah State Univ., Logan.

Webster, A. J. F. 1967. Continuous measurement of heart rate as an indicator of the energy expenditure of sheep. Br. J. Nutr. 2 1:769-785.

BEDSITE CHARACTERISTICS OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE SUPERSTITION MOUNTAINS, ARIZONA

BRIAN F. WAKELING,' School of Agribusiness and Environmental Resources, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287

WILLIAM H. MILLER, School of Agribusiness and Environmental Resources, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287

Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 33:6-8.

Abstract: We measured 59 bedding areas used by desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canade~zsis) on Coffee Flats in the Superstition Mountains, Arizona between May 1987 and March 1989. We compared these samples with 134 randomly located sample points to determine habitat use for bedding purposes. Bedding areas located on canyon terraces, on escape terrain, and close to water appeared to be preferred. Bedding areas were frequently located on slopes >70% and afforded between 30 and 70% thermal cover. Vegetational structure was 70% bare ground, cryptogams, and rock, 14% herbaceous vegetation, 15% shrubs, and < 1% trees. These characteristics can be used to identify suitable bedding habitat for the reintroduction of desert bighorn sheep.

Several studies have been conducted describing the general attributes of desert bighorn habitat (Robinson and Conemiller 1954, Graham 1968, Merritt 1974, Sandoval 1979, Hansen 1980, Holl 1982). Little research has been published on habitat used for bedding purposes.

Inadequate suitable habitat for bedding purposes has been suggested as a potential limiting factor for desert bighorn sheep populations (Han- sen 1980). Memtt (1974) described the physical characteristics of bedding areas in the Santa Rosa Mountains, California. Because individual site use is influenced by relative availability of suitable bedding sites, knowledge of the interrelationship of availability and use is essential for the proper identification of suitable bedding habitat. Our objective was to determine bedding site use as influenced by bedding habitat available.

Funding for this project was provided by the National Rifle Associ- ation, the Graduate Student Association Research Development Pro- gram and the School of Agribusiness and Environmental Resources, Arizona State University.

STUDY AREA

The study area was located approximately 95 km east of Phoenix in the southeastern portion of the Superstition Mountains of Arizona. Elevation on the 2,760 ha study area ranged from 770 to 1,415 m. Annual rainfall at Superior, Arizona, 10 km southeast of the study area, averaged 5 13 mm. The majority of the rainfall occurred during thun- derstorms from July through September, and during December through February (winter). Mean monthly temperatures in winter were 10 and 30 C in June through August (summer) (Natl. Oceanic and Atmos. Admin. 1964-84).

I Present address: Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2222 W. Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023.

Vegetative communities represented were in the Arizona upland sub- division, Arizona Sonoran Desert scrub and semidesert grassland (Brown 1982). Common species include velvet mesquite (Prosopis velzitina), foothill palo-verde (Cercidium microphyllzi~iz), creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), ocotillo (Fouquiera splenderzs), jojoba (Si~nrnondsia chinen- sis), brittlebush (E~zcelia farinosa), tanglehead (Heter'opogo~z contortzis), and sideoats grama (Boziteloua curtipenhila).

Thirty desert bighorn sheep (0. c. rizexica~za) were released on this area in November 1984 (Lee 1985). Eight of the sheep were equipped with radio-telemetry collars. Post release monitoring determined that an expanding population had been established (S. C. Cunningham et al., Evaluation of 8 desert bighorn sheep transplants in Arizona, Final report G60020, Ariz. Game and Fish Dep., 129pp., 1987).

METHODS

Habitat Characterization

We characterized the study area using 134 randomly located sample points generated from a random number generating program. These coordinates corresponded to 6 digit Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates on a grid system at 100 m intervals.

We recorded percent slope, aspect, position on slope, landform, location on terrace, distance to water, proximity to escape terrain, and thermal cover on each sample point. Position on slope was a proportional measurement based upon distance from the top of the slope and the overall height of the slope. Landform was classified as mesa top, ridge top, canyon slope, mountain slope, low hills, flats, and washes. Distance to water was measured on U.S. Geological Service 7.5' maps. Distance to escape terrain was measured at the sample point. Thermal cover was defined as any item that physically blocks incoming or outgoing, long or short wave radiation, and was estimated as that percent of the upper hemisphere eclipsed, with the sample point as the center of that hemisphere. A line intercept transect was used to measure the structural composition. The transect was 33.3 m in length, oriented randomly, and centered on the sample point. Structural classes were bare ground or rock, cryptogamic growth, herbaceous vegetation, shrubs <0.5 m tall, shrubs >0.5 m tall, and trees.

Bedding Area Samples

Bedding areas were measured from May 1987 through March 1989. Bedding areas were sampled when recent use could be documented. Six of the 59 locations were obtained by locating 3 of the radio collared sheep. Remaining bedsite locations were made by visual location of unradioed animals and reconnaissance of areas frequented by bighorn sheep. For the purposes of this paper, sites were not distinguished as day or night use areas.

Physiognomy data were collected at each bedding area to correspond to data collected at random locations. Structural cover data was collected along 4 12.5-m line intercept transects established at right angles to each other, radiating from the geographic midpoint of the bedding area. Because actual time of use could not always be documented, we collected thermal cover as described for random locations, and did not measure the amount of shade present at time of use. Fields of view were measured from the bedding area. At each site, distance to the point where vision was obscured and the angle of arc was determined. We defined angle of arc as the difference between the leading and trailing azimuth in degrees. In addition, the angle of arc in which bighorn could see distances > 500 m was recorded.

Data were classified into categories for each component measured. We evaluated the proportional bedding area and availability data using Chi-square contingency table analysis to determine preference and avoidance of components measured.

RESULTS

Site characteristics were measured on 59 bedding areas that had been occupied by desert bighorn sheep. The data indicated a use of slopes > 70% (P < 0.00 1) and an avoidance of slopes <30°/o (P < 0.003) (Table 1). West and northwest aspects were the only aspects used in excess of their availability (P = 0.013 and 0.045, respectively). All other aspects


Table 1. Chi-square contingency table of bighorn sheep bedsite use and availability habitat data.

- - -

O/o of % bed- avail-

Class sites able X' P

% slope < 10% 1 O-29% 30-69% > 69%

Aspect North Northeast East Southeast South Southwest West Northwest

Position on slope Upper third Mid third Lower third

Landform Mesa top Ridge top Canyon slope Mountain slope Flats, washes, low hills

Terrace On terrace Off terrace

Distance to water (399 m 400-599 m 600-799 m >799 m

Distance to escape terrain <25 m 26-75 m >75 m

Thermal cover <29% 30-70%

were used in proportion to their availability. The lower 33% of terrain features were avoided (P < 0.001) and the upper and mid 33% of terrain features were favored for bedding (P = 0.002 and 0.020, respectively). Canyon slopes were the landform used most often for bedding purposes (P < 0.001). The only landforms that were avoided were low hills, flats and washes (P < 0.001). A strong association between bedsites and terraces was apparent (P < 0.001).

Bighorn sheep appeared to bed within 400 m of water sources (P < 0.001). The number of bedding areas diminished as distance from water sources increased. Bedding areas were never located > 75 m (P < 0.00 1) from escape terrain and areas located within 25 m of escape terrain were used more than other sites (P < 0.001). Areas having 30-70% thermal cover appeared to be used as bedding areas (P = 0.003). Those areas having <30% thermal cover were not used in proportion to avail-

ability (P = 0.003). The mean angle of arc where visibility was obscured within the first 10 m was 75". The mean angle of arc where visibility was obscured within 10 to 25, 25 to 75, and >75 m was 155, 86, and 44", respectively. Distances >500 m could be viewed in a mean angle of arc of 90". Additionally, structural components of the vegetation surrounding bedsites did not hamper vision. Bare ground, rock, and cryptogamic growth made up 70% of the typical bedding area. Herba- ceous growth amounted to 14% of the composition. Shrubs <0.5 and >0.5 m tall consisted of 12 and 3% of the cover, respectively. Trees made up < 1% of the typical bedding area.

DISCUSSION

Several authors have reported steep slopes as an important component of escape terrain for desert bighorn sheep (Sandoval 1979, Hansen 1980). Bighorn use of west and northwest aspects may reflect an effort to select areas that provide shade. Desert bighorn use a number of techniques to modify possible heat stress, including selecting aspects that provide relief from solar radiation (Simmons 1969). Merritt (1974) found most bedding areas located on north facing slopes. North and east facing slopes on this study area, however, tend to be of a brushy nature, impeding visual abilities. Reduction of visibility could deter selection of northeastern slopes for bedding purposes, resulting in greater use of west and northwestern slopes. Bighorn may modify their behavior in other ways to avoid heat stress in the Superstition Mountains. Use of shade or caves has been suggested as a means to avoid summer heat stress (Simmons 1969). Bedding on light colored rocks may also reduce heat stress (Simmons 1969). During this study, bighorn were observed to use caves in periods of intense heat, and were frequently seen bedded in shady areas adjacent to bluffs.

Bedding areas were frequently located in the upper 66% of terrain features. This placement would allow for an extended field of view below the animal. Bedding areas closer to the top of terrain features provide an animal a quick escape route by simply crossing over the ridge or mountain top.

Bedding areas appear to be used in an effort to provide the best possible security and visibility. Canyon slopes appear to provide the best opportunity to detect potential predators. A bedding area in such a position could provide better fields of view than a mesa, ridge top, or mountain slope. Low hill, flats, and washes provide poor fields of view and are rarely used by bighorn for bedding. In addition, these last 3 landforms are typically further from escape terrain, possibly making those animals using these areas more vulnerable to predation. Canyons appear to be favored, but mesas, ridge tops, and mountain slopes are also used.

Bighorn demonstrated a tendency for bedding on terraces. A bedding area on a terrace can provide good long range fields of view, typically adjacent or on escape terrain, and with a reasonable amount of thermal cover throughout a portion of the day. These same areas could radiate heat back to the animal during the night.

Desert bighorn appear to have an affinity for bedding close to water sources in the Superstition Mountains. Merritt (1974) reported large bedding areas were typically near to water sources. Krausman et al. (1985) reported that bighorn may not require free water for periods of 10 days despite ambient temperatures exceeding normal body temperatures. Reports suggesting that bighorn may go longer than 6 months without water (Mendoza 1976) certainly support this concept. However, Turner (1 973) believed bighorn required approximately 4% of their body weight in water daily. The relatively common water sources in the Superstition Mountains may provide an uncommon situation rarely found in other mountain ranges.

Structural composition of bedsites differed from that available. Bed- ding areas were used in areas that afforded little vegetational obstruction to vision. Less than 4% of the composition of the average bedsite was above eye level of a bedded animal. The ideal bedding area appears to be located on a canyon terrace, among escape terrain and 5400 m from a water source. The area should be >70°/o slope and provide between 30-70% thermal cover. Sites providing good security and visibility are used more than others.

8 BEDSITE CHARACTERISTICS Wakeling and Miller

LITERATURE CITED

Brown, D. E., ed. 1982. Desert plants, 4:l-342. Graham, H. 1968. Habitat studies in the San Gabriel Mountains big-

horn range in California. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 21:21-23. Hansen, C. G. 1980. Habitat. Pages 64-79 111 G. Monson and L.

Sumner, eds. The desert bighorn. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson. Holl, S. A. 1982. Evaluation of bighorn sheep habitat. Desert Bighorn

Counc. Trans. 26:4749. Krausman, P. R., S. Torres, L. L. Ordway, J. J. Hervert, and M. Brown.

1985. Die1 activity of ewes in the Little Harquahala Mountains, Arizona. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 29:24-26.

Lee, R. M. 1985. Status of bighorn in Arizona: 1985. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 29:34-36.

Mendoza, J. 1976. Status of the desert bighorn in Sonora. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 20:25-26.

Memtt, M. F. 1974. Measurement of utilization of bighorn sheep

habitat in the Santa Rosa Mountains. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 18:4-17.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1964-84. An- zona climatological data. Vols. 68-88.

Robinson, R. M. and F. P. Cronemiller. 1954. Notes on the habitat of the desert bighorn in the San Gabriel Mountains of California. Calif. Fish and Game 40:267-27 1.

Sandoval, A. V. 1979. Preferred habitat of desert bighorn sheep in the San Andreas Mountains, New Mexico. M.S. Thesis, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. 242pp.

Simmons, N. M. 1969. Heat stress and bighorn behavior in the Cabeza Prieta Game Range, Arizona. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 1355- 63.

Turner, J. C. 1973. Water energy and electrolytic balance in the desert bighorn sheep (Ovis ca~zademis cremzobates Elliot). Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. California, Riverside. 150pp.

STATUS REPORTS and COMMENTS

STATUS OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN ARIZONA. 1988

Raymond M. Lee Arizona Game and Fish Department 2222 W. Greenway Road Phoenix, AZ 85023

CURRENT STATUS

Estimates of Arizona's desert bighorn sheep (Ovis ca~zude~~sis nrexi- cam and 0 . c. nelsonQ indicate a steadily increasing population of approximately 4,500 animals. The 1988 winter helicopter surveys produced 2,668 observations in 236 hours (1 1.3 sheep/hour). The survey results yield ratios of 55 rams, 36 lambs, and 20 year1ings:lOO ewes (Fig. 1).

The Rocky Mountain bighorn (Ovis c. canadensis) population is expanding in the San Francisco River drainage (11 = 200). Winter surveys produced 164 observations. The survey results produce ratios of 61 rams, 53 lambs, and 6 1 yearlings: 100 ewes.

H UNTING

Bighorn sheep permits remain the most sought after hunting permits in the state. Residents (11 = 2,363) and non-residents (11 = 918) repre- senting 48 states and 4 countries, applied for the 76 regular season permits. While over 43 people applied for each permit (with individual unit odds varying from 12:l to 300:1), the total number of applicants represents only 2.2% of the total big game permit applicants (Fig. 2).

Two special permits were issued to raise funds for bighorn sheep management programs. All 78 potential hunters participated and harvested 75 rams, Arizona's record harvest. This marks the fifth consecutive year that the harvest record has been broken. Percent hunter success fractionally exceeded the record set last year of 96%. The 5-year hunter success average remains above 93% (Fig. 3).

The 1988 season produced 30 animals (40% of the harvest) qualifLing for the Arizona Trophy Book (min. score of 162 Boone and Crockett points). Of these rams, 5 scored > 170 point, 3 > 180, and 1 > 190

78 80 82 84 86 88 YEAR

Fig. 1. Six and age ratios (L:lOOF:M) for bighorn sheep determined during helicopter surveys in Arizona from 1977 to 1988.

Table 1. History of bighorn sheep transplant activities in Arizona from 1954-88.

Radio- Year Captured Moved % mortalities collared

1954-58 1959-63 1964-68 1969-73 1974-78 1979-83 1984-88 Totals

points. This follows a consistent trend of increases in trophy rams. During the first 5 seasons, 12% of the harvest scored > 162 points. This percentage has increased steadily; during the last 5 years 46% of the harvest scored > 162 points. The same trend is seen in rams scoring > 170 points. In the first 5 seasons, 2% of the rams harvested exceeded 170 points; during the last 5 seasons 14% of the harvest exceeded 170 points (Fig. 4). The number of > 180 point rams increased this year, including the new state record (> 195 points) and 2 > 180 point Rocky Mountain rams. This record can be attributed to the hunter clinic put on by the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society (ADBSS), which stress- es trophy hunting, and to the conservative hunting policies of Arizona. This increase in score is despite the use of "any ram" as the legal animal; this classification was started statewide in 1985.

The 1987-91 Arizona Big Game Strategic Plans for bighorn sheep call for a slightly less conservative approach to sheep hunting. As a result of this plan, and the increase in total rams surveyed, permits for the 1989 season are set at 80, an increase of 4 over last year. Two additional permits will be issued for alternative funding purposes.

ALTERNATIVE FUNDING

For the sixth consecutive year, the Arizona Game and Fish Depart- ment (AGFD) and the ADBSS have entered into an agreement whereby

65 70 75 80 YEAR

Fig. 2. Number of first choice applicants/permit for bighorn sheep in Arizona from 1964 to 1988.

STATUS ARIZONA Lee

PERMITS

k'

HARVEST

75 80 85 YEAR

Fig. 3. Hunter success, permits, and harvest of biglrorn sheep in Arizona from 1972 to 1988.

the ADBSS auctions 1 permit (at the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep convention) and raffles another to raise funds for bighorn sheep management programs in Arizona (the drawing odds for the raffle permit are approximately 3,250:l). In 1988, these permits produced $14 1,322.34 (the interest is added to the account). To date, this program has produced over $650,000. In the past, these proceeds have been used to purchase transport trailers, capture guns, computers, helicopter time, materials for water developments, and to fund research studies. Ari- zona's bighorn sheep management program would not be possible with-

TRANSPLANTING

Bighorn sheep and human interaction predate the amval of European man. Unfortunately, like most other large mammals, bighorn were ad- versely impacted by modem civilization. The bighorn's range in Arizona was significantly reduced, resulting in sheep occumng only along the Colorado River and its tributaries and in the southwestern mountains. Arizona's history of returning bighorn sheep to historic range dates back to 1955. At this time Arizona and Texas entered into an ambitious program to capture 50 bighorn sheep in the Kofa Game Refuge. One- half of these animals were to be released in the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area in west Texas, with the remainder being released within an enclosure at Aravaipa Canyon. This project met with limited

l o t I--- % OF 170 f RAMS ,

2

V ' 170+ RAMS

0 60 70 80

YEAR Fig. 4. Number and percentage of Boone and Crockett point (> 170) rams in the Arizona harvest of bighorn sheep from 1953 to 1988.

success; 22 animals were successfully released, with 15 mortalities occumng during the operation.

Techniques have improved since these first efforts. Since 1980, a mean of 80 sheep have been transplanted annually, with a mean of only 3 mortalities (Table 1). In 1988, using drop-nets and net-guns fired from helicopters, 70 bighorn sheep were successfully captured and released. Of these, 2 were provided to the University of Arizona for research purposes and 1 to the Desert Sonoran Museum for their bighorn display. Preliminary results from an evaluation of past releases indicate that drop-net captures result in sheep remaining together longer and staying

sheep, successfully released the 700th, and attached the 250th radiocollar to a sheep. Similar transplant efforts are planned for 1989, and Arizona will transplant sheep to Colorado.

RESEARCH

It was nice that none of the disease papers presented at this year's Council meeting needed to be researched in Arizona, however, legislation was introduced that would require, among other things, a 60-day quarantine period during transplant operations. Needless to say, this legislation would virtually end our transplant program-reminding us that we must remain vigilant in our defense of bighorn sheep.

STATUS OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN CALIFORNIA, 1988

Richard A. Weaver California Department of Fish and Game Sacramento, CA 958 14

The bighorn sheep (Ovis canadeiwis) population in California is estimated at 4,66 1 and increasing steadily. Several investigations are in progress examining disease and suppressed populations. Management plans are being developed for each herd. Emphasis is placed on water development, transplants, and investigating problem areas.

POPULATION STATUS AND TRENDS

The revised estimate of bighorn sheep populations in California is 4,661. That compares to an estimate of 3,737 developed in 1972 at the end of a 4 year, statewide bighorn study. Bighorns are found in 57 different herds (mountain ranges). There are 3 subspecies in California.

The Nelson Bighorn (0. c. nelsoni] is the most numerous (iz = 3,764) and widely distributed. Population estimates are higher than in 1972 (12 = 2,730). This upward trend is due in part to an aggressive management program that includes water development and reintroductions. Burro reductions made it possible for some of these reintroductions.

In the Sierra Nevada Mountains there are 5 herds of California bighorn sheep (0. c. califortziana) (n = 327 vs. 195 in 1972); 3 are reintroduced herds. This subspecies is listed as threatened by the California Fish and Game Commission. The increase has been due to the rein-

Baxter Herd (12 = 175) has been very productive and sheep have been trapped from this group of bighorn in 1979, 1980, 1982, 1986, and 1988.

Peninsular Bighorn (0. c. creinizobates), found in the desert slopes of the mountains from Palm Springs south to the Mexican border, are also listed as threatened in California. These sheep, which were once described as having the most dense and most stable population within California, have declined from an estimated 1,17 1 to 570 individuals. This decline is due to excessively high lamb mortality since 1977. The Bighorn Institute of Palm Desert, California under a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is investigating this problem.

HUNTING

The California Fish and Fame Commission was authorized to adopt all necessary regulations to provide for biologically sound managment of Nelson bighorn sheep, including sport hunting in the Kelso and Old Dad peaks area and Marble Mountains of eastern San Bernardino Coun- ty in 1987. This law will sunset 1 January 1993. The Commission shall not authorize 15% of the mature rams as determined by an annual count conducted by the CDFG. The legislation provides that 1 permit can be used for fund raising purposes and all revenues derived shall go into a dedicated account to benefit bighorn sheep.

In 1987, 9 permits were authorized; 4 permits in each unit and the auction permit that was good in any unit. All 9 permitees were successful in taking rams ranging from 6 to 11 years old. In 1988, 9 permits were authorized: 5 in the Kelso and Old Dad Unit and 3 in the Marble Mountains Unit. The special permit was good in either unit. Seven of 9 permitees were successful taking rams 6 to 12 years old. One was taken with archery equipment.

In 1987 the special auction permit produced a high bid of $70,000 for the opportunity of taking the first-ever ram to be taken by a licensed hunter in California. There were 4,066 applicants that paid a non- refundable $5.00 fee. The 8 successful applicants paid an additional

$200 and attended a mandatory hunter clinic to receive their tag. Total revenue from fees and permits was $9 1,930. In 1988, the special auction tag brought a high bid of $59,000. The 3,385 applicants paid the $5.00 non-refundable fee and the 8 successful applicants chosen by comput- erized random selection paid the additional $200. Total revenue generated and deposited in the bighorn sheep account was $77,525.

The auction tag for the 1989 hunt brought $40,000. The Commission has not finalized the 1989 hunting regulations but it is expected that there will be no changes from the 1988 season.

No California Fish and Game violations occurred that the CDFG was aware of in 1987 or 1988. There were activists attempting to disrupt the hunt both years and a few people were cited for these activities. As a result of this activity, the Legislature did pass a hunter harassment bill that is now in effect. How useful it will be in detemng Earth First or others has not been documented.

RELOCATIONS

Since 1979, CDFG has captured and relocated 361 bighorn in 18 separate projects. This includes the removal of 143 bighorn from the Kelso and Old Dad peak areas and 55 from the Marble Mountains to lower the density. The total sheep population in the Kelso and Old Dad peak area has not been reduced and only slightly in the Marble Moun- tains.

Only 1 relocation failed. In 1980, 14 California bighorn were released in the Warner Mountains. By June of 1987 they had increased to approximately 65 animals. A die-off occurred during January 1988 and all sheep were dead in 3 weeks. They died of a bacterial pneumonia believed to have been contracted from 1 stray domestic sheep.

One augmentation is sometimes necessary to make a reintroduction successful. Augmenting extremely low remnant populations has been successful. Making bighorn releases in areas that are also in mule deer (Oa'ocorleus heinionus) habitat will result in some losses from mountain lion (Felrs concolor) predation. Reintroduced herds will not increase at the same rate in deer habitat as herds that do not have deer within their range. The only place lion control work has been conducted is in the Lee Vining release of the listed California bighorn. Two mountain lions have been taken following predation on this herd.

INVESTIGATIONS

Serology Sampling

During population censuses and relocation projects, and collections from hunter-killed bighorn rams, blood samples were taken and pro- cessed through several labs to determine the presence or evidence of exposure to diseases of domestic and wild ruminants. Forty-three mountain ranges have been sampled. No mountain range has been free of all the viral diseases of concern: parainfluenza 3 (PI-3), epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD), bluetongue (BT), contagious ecthyma (CE), and respiratory syncita (RSV). To date, 1 19 California, 58 1 Nelson and 17 peninsular bighorn (exluding those sampled by the Bighorn Research Institute) blood samples have been taken. Of the mountain ranges sampled to date, 63% have titers indicating exposure to BT or EHD, diseases that have a gnat as a vector. Thirty-four percent of ranges indicate exposure to PI-3, a disease spread by direct contact. No exposure to PI- 3, BTV or EHD has been detected in the Kingston, Paiute, New York, Wood, Clark, San Bernardino, Chuckwalla and Avawatz mountain ranges and that portion of the Death Valley area checked to date, including Panamint Butte, Tucki Mountain, Tin Mountain, Dry Mountain and the Grapevine Mountains.

Livestock and Bighorn Sheep

An ongoing study of the impact of cattle grazing on bighorn herds is being conducted by contract between the CDFG and the University of California, White Mountain Research Station. Work in 2 mountain ranges in eastern San Bernardino County indicates there is a high prob- ability the viral diseases BT-EHD introduced to the native bighorn from cattle is having a significant effect on bighorn populations through high lamb mortality. Bighorn populations that exhibit high exposure to BT- EHD have a lower density than equivalent populations of low exposure

12 STATUS CALIFORNIA Weaver

to these diseases. Lamb recruitment rates increased in the 2 consecutive dry years. This suggests that the variation in populations of gnats that transmit BT-EHD is an important factor. This study has been expanded to follow the demographic history of bighorn population in 3 additional ranges.

The California State Department of Parks and Recreation report they now have all the feral cattle removed from the bighorn habitat of the Anza Borrego Desert State Park. These animals were sampled and titers were found indicating exposure to all of the viral diseases mentioned above.

We have found sabies mites infections on 7 bighorn sheep in 4 locations. This is a reportable condition as the livestock industry is said to be free of sabies in California. These bighorn populations will be watched closely.

Santa Rosa Mountain Study Under a cooperative agreement with CDFG, the Bighorn Sheep In-

stitute continues to study the high lamb mortality rate that has existed in Santa Rosa Mountains of Riverside and San Diego counties since 1977. Approximately 90°/o of the lambs die each year at 2 to 4 months of age. The north end of the range is designated a study area. Bighorn

sheep are kept under close surveillance. Sick lambs are picked up and brought in to the Bighorn Institute facility for study and treatment. Parainfluenza 3 is implicated as the virus that predisposes the lambs to fatal pneumonia. Since 198 1, 37 sick lambs that would probably have died have been brought in. Three have died. Twenty-seven have been released to the wild and 24 of those are still alive. The bighorn population in the study area is 50 animals and 23 of those were raised in captivity. A vaccine trial for PI-3 has been conducted on the penned animals. The results were encouraging enough to warrant a field trial this winter. Forty free-ranging bighorns were vaccinated from a helicopter. Twenty-three animals in the study area, 17 in the south part of the range and none in the central part of the range. The institute makes helicopter counts of the entire range in October.

Management Plans

The CDFG will develop plans for each bighorn herd in the State as mandated by legislation. Management activities will continue to include water development in water deficient areas, relocations to suitable historic habitat and investigations into mortality factors. Hunting will continue in the 2 mountain ranges through 1992 and thereafter under whatever additional legislation might be initiated.

STATUS OF DESERT Table 2. Summary of desert bighorn slreep transplants in Nevada.

BIGHORN SHEEP IN NEVADA, 1988

Daniel Delaney Nevada Department of Wildlife State Mailroom Complex Las Vegas, NV 89 158

POPULATION STATUS AND TREND

Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis catzadetuis tzelsotz~] (tz = 5,700) inhabit 45 mountain ranges in Nevada. Population estimates are calculated annually, based on helicopter surveys. Fall helicopter surveys, conducted on 20 mountain ranges during September and October 1988, resulted in the classification of 1,836 bighorn; 50 rams32 lambs: 100 ewes (Table I). The 1988 1amb:ewe ratio was approximately equal to the long-term mean ratio (31 1ambs:lOO ewes). The ram: ewe ratio observed this year is the lowest on record. The ram : ewe ratio has been below the long-term mean ratio (58 rams:100 ewes) since 1984.

Nevada's desert bighorn sheep herd is stable. While established herds show stable trends, recently transplanted herds show variable trends. Generally, trends for transplant herd in the southern portions of the state are increasing, while those in the northern portions of the state are stable.

TRAPPING AND TRANSPLANT

The reintroduction of desert bighorn sheep into historically occupied habitats continues to be a priority program within the Nevada Depart- ment of Wildlife. Trapping operations were conducted on River, Mor- mon and Lone mountains in 1988. In July 1988, 24 bighorn sheep (6 rams, 15 ewes and 3 lambs) were trapped from the River Mountains and transplanted to the Last Chance Range. All 24 animals were captured using a 2 1 m2 drop net.

Twenty-five desert bighorn sheep were trapped in the Mormon Moun- tains on 26-27 October 1988. All captured bighorn were transplanted to Texas. On 29 October 1988,21 sheep (3 rams, 15 ewes, and 3 lambs) were captured on Lone Mountain and transplanted to the Gabbs Valley Range. All animals were trapped using net-gun capture techniques. Trapping and transplant operations, conducted since 1968, have resulted in the reintroduction of desert bighorn into 2 1 mountain ranges in Nevada.

Over 1,100 desert bighorn have been captured, and >800 desert bighorn transplanted (Table 2). In addition to the 2 1 transplanted herds within Nevada, 7 herds have been established in Utah, Texas and Col- orado.

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

1968-79 191 8 5 102 4 1980 39 3 8 - 1 1981 2 1 20 1 - 1982 8 8 69 - 190 1983 119 8 8 30 1 1984 147 114 3 2 1 1985 64 50 11 3 1986 235 187 45 3 1987 112 9 9 10 3 1988 8 8 7 2 10 6

,116 of 19 mortalities in 1982 resulted from a truck fire.

HUNTING AND HAR VEST

Desert bighorn sheep are hunted on only 24 of 45 occupied mountain ranges in Nevada. The majority of ranges, currently not hunted, are transplanted herds. One hundred thirty-eight permits (123 resident, 13 nonresident and 2 special bid tags) were available for the 1988 Nevada desert bighorn sheep hunt. Interest in hunting desert bighorn sheep remains high, as indicated by the number of applications received for permits (residents = 17/permit, nonresidents = 88/permit). During 1988, resident and nonresident applications increased 9 and 1 1%, respectively. The harvest of 114 rams in 1988 represents the highest number of rams taken in any year. Hunter success this year was 82.6%, which represents the fourth highest success rate and the fourth time in the past 5 years that hunter success has exceeded 80% (Table 3). Of the 114 rams harvested m 1988, 14 (12.2OIo of harvest) qualify for inclusion into the Boone and Crockett Record Book, and 32 (28% of harvest) qualify for inclusion into the Nevada Record Book (162 point min.).

The second largest ram ever taken in Nevada was harvested this year. The ram scored 184-6/8 Boone and Crockett points, and was harvested from Stonewall Mountains, the first transplant population opened to hunting in Nevada.

Water Developments

The development of water to extend seasonal use and distribution of bighorn sheep is a continuing program within Nevada. Six new water developments, with a combined storage capacity of 113,180 L were completed in 1988. Funding for these projects was provided by Nevada Department of Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn, Bighorns Unlimited and the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep.

Table 1. Summary of fall helicopter surveys for desert bighorn sheep in Nevada, 1979-88.

Hr of Observa- No. sheep Year survey tions/hr observed Ewes Lambs Rams Ram : ewe : lamb

14 STATUS NEVADA @ Delaney

Table 3. Summary of desert bighorn sheep harvested in Nevada, 1979- 88.

Year No. permits No. harvested % hunter success

1979 8 1 5 9 72.8 1980 86 66 76.7 1981 90 6 5 72.2 1982 90 5 8 64.4 1983 11 1 94 84.7 1984 121 86 71.1 1985 128 110 85.9 1986 131 107 81.6 1987 135 112 83.0 1988 138 114 82.6

STATUS OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN NEW MEXICO, 1988

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

In New Mexico, desert bighorn sheep (Ovis carzadeizsis rnexicarza) occur as remnant populations in the Hatchet, Alamo Hueco, Peloncillo, and San Andres mountains. Psoroptic scabies (Psoroptes ovis) has been implicated as the primary proximal and predisposing cause limiting population growth in the San Andres since the mite epizootic was discovered in 1978. Pneumonia was responsible for low lamb survival in the first few years of the Peloncillo transplant, which originated in 198 1, and may still be a factor limiting population growth (Elenowitz and Humphreys 1987, Sandoval et al. 1987). Based on population trends between 1984-88, the San Andres and Peloncillo populations are stable and the Hatchet and Alamo Hueco populations are increasing. In 1988 we estimate there are 215 desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico (Table 1).

Hatchet Mountain Population

An estimated 125-1 50 bighorn sheep occurred in the Hatchet Moun- tains in the early 1950s, based on a ground count of 82 (Gordon 1953). Severe drought beginning in 1956 and competition for reduced forage by excessive numbers of deer (Odocoileus spp.) and cattle, caused wide- spread starvation in deer and bighorn. By 1960, <20 bighorn were estimated in the mountain (Gross 1960). From 1960 to 1979, the population fluctuated around this number (Fig. 1).

Supplemental transplants of 30 sheep from Red Rock in 1979 and 1982 increased the population from 12 in 1979 to an estimated 80 in 1988. This estimate was based on aerial counts of 66-78 bighorn between 1986-88. The Hatchet Mountain population has responded most successfully to transplant efforts of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF). Currently, this population is the largest in the state and is increasing.

Spring lamb surveys (1984-88) indicate excellent production (7 1-85 1ambs:lOO ewes). Fall surveys (1984-88) indicate a high proportion of rams to ewes (60-92 rams: 100 ewes). Recruitment rates, derived from fall lamb : ewe ratios, were 26 and 64% in 1987 and 1988, respectively. The rate in 1987 appears low, but this is probably due to a large number

Table 1. Status of desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico, fall 1988.

Transplant

TIME Fig. 1. Number of desert bighorn sheep bbserved during ground and aerial surveys in the Hatchet Mountains, New Mexico, 1953-88.

of non-productive ewes (derived from a high number of lambs and yearlings the previous year) that skewed the ratio downward.

Since May 1987, movement to and from the Alamo Hueco Mountains by Hatchet sheep of all age and sex classes has been documented. These movements occurred prior to the Alamo Hueco transplant (Sandoval 1982), but now are a regular occurrence.

Alamo Hueco

The Alamo Hueco population of bighorn sheep was established with 21 bighorn sheep transplanted from Red Rock in October 1986. All adult bighorn were radiocollared (n = 20) and intensively monitored between January-May 1987. After May 1987, the bighorn were monitored by seasonal helicopter surveys and monthly monitoring of radio- collared animals by fixed-wing aircraft.

Axtell (1988) documented 2 types of post-release movements: sedentary and exploratory. Sedentary bighorn (n = 1 I) did not leave the Alamo Hueco Mountains or peripheral hills and moved no further than 8 km from the release site. Exploratory bighorn (rz = 10) moved between the Alamo Hueco and Big Hatchet mountains and traveled 22-35 km from the release site.

No.

Area Population history Estimated Actualn Trend

Hatchet Mountains Indigenous, supplemented 30 in 1979, 1982 80 66 Increasing Alamo Hueco Mountains Transplanted 2 1 in 1986 30 26 Increasing Peloncillo Mountains Transplanted 38 in 198 1, 1982 25 12 Stable San Andres Mountains Indigenous 25 23 Stable Red Rock Propagating facility, supplemented 2 1 in 1972, 1973, 1975 5 5 5 5 Increasing

aActual no. based on aerial or ground surveys fall 1988.

16 STATUS NEW MEXICO Elenowitz and Humphreys

Scabies Discovered

9

Bighorn Sheep Salvage Operation

Return of Son Andrcs su rv iv ing sheep

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Mar 89

YEAR

Fig. 2. Number of desert bighorn sheep observed during ground and aerial surveys conducted in the Sari Andres Mour~tains, New Mexico, 1976-89.

One important consequwce of the Alamo Hueco transplant was that it engendered exchange of bighorn between the Alamo Hueco and Hatchet mountains, thereby creating a desert bighorn population complex com- prising the Big Hatchet, Little Hatchet, and Alamo Hueco mountains. The exchange ensures the use ofalternate habitat in the event oflocalized drought or habitat alteration (Elenowitz and Humphreys 1987) and facilitates genetic exchange between populations.

Four of the 7 radio-collared bighorn mortalities were associated with post-release and inter-mountain movements to the Hatchet Mountains and the Republic of Mexico. In the long run, the advantages of genetic interchange and familiarity with alternate habitat appear to outweigh the disadvantage of potential mortality.

According to the criteria outlined by Rowland and Schmidt (198 l), the Alamo Hueco transplant would be considered successful because the current population (N = 26) exceeds the number of animals initially released (N = 21). Due to the influx of bighorn sheep from the Hatchet Mountains, which inflated population size, several other factors are also indicative of a successful transplant: the establishment of home ranges within close proximity to the release site, 90 and 89% ewe survival rates in 1987 and 1988, respectively, and 50 and 43% recruitment into the yearling cohort in 1988 and 1989, respectively. Factors that may be limiting a higher rate of increase include the use of low elevation hills up to 4 km from escape terrain, the limited number of water sources close to escape terrain, and sympatry with cattle year-round (Axtell 1988).

Peloncillo Mountains

The Peloncillo Mountain population was established with 38 desert bighorn transplanted from the Kofa Mountains, Arizona and Red Rock, New Mexico between 198 1-82. Poor lamb survival in the first 3 years of the transplant was attributed to pneumonia (Sandoval et al. 1987). Clinical symptoms of pneumonia have not been observed since 1983, but this may be due to the lack of intensive field observations. Poor lamb survival occurred in 1984 and 1985 and production and recruitment improved slightly between 1986-88.

In 1988 we estimate that 30 bighorn sheep occur in the Peloncillos, based on surveys that counted 26-29 bighorn between 1986-88. The

population has remained stable since the original transplant in 198 1, apparently due to recruitment that is too low to replace adult mortality. Low recruitment may be disease-related. We believe that supplemental transplants would give a boost to this population, but it would first be necessary to test disease compatibility of bighorn from the Peloncillo Mountains (Arizona stock) with bighorn sheep from Red Rock.

San Andres Mountains

A psoroptic scabies (P. ovis) epizootic, first discovered in 1978, reduced the San Andres population from 200 to 75 bighorn within a year (Sandoval 1980). Since 1982, the San Andres population has stabilized between 25-30 animals (Fig. 2). Lamb survival between 1986-88 was r 50°/o and most of these lambs were recruited into the yearling cohort. Lamb survival thus does not appear to be the factor limiting this population. Instead, the imbalance between female recruitment and adult female mortality appears to be the problem.

Twenty-five radio-collared bighorn died between January 1984-July 1989 (P. A. Hoban, San Andres Natl. Wildl. Refuge Annu. Narrative Rep., USFWS, 50pp. 1988). Lion predation was the greatest proximate cause of death (11 = lo), followed by accidental falls (11 = 5), diseases ( 1 1 = 4), and other (12 = 6). Although scabies was the proximate cause of death in only 2 cases, scabies infestations were present in 10 of the 25 mortalities. Scabies may predispose bighorn to other diseases, mal- nutrition, predation, or accidents (Clark et al. 1988). In particular, aural scabies plugs impairs hearing and balance, thereby increasing suscep- tibility to predation and accidental falls, respectively (R. Clark, Inter. Wildl. Vet. Serv., pers. commun.). The San Andres bighorn appear to have a high number of fatal falls, and 3 of the 5 bighorn that died of falls had aural scabies infestations.

We believe that the major factor limiting this population is the de- bilitating effect of scabies mites on adult ewes. The small group of adult ewes is capable of producing only a small proportion of female offspring that can be potentially recruited. Thus, in each year between 1985-89 (except for 1988), only 2 females were recruited and the number of known female mortalities exceeded the number of females recruited. Because only radio-collared mortalities can be calculated, this represents only the minimum mortality rate. Based on this information alone, the population would be expected to decline.

No sheep were captured during 1986-87 because the cooperating agencies (i.e., U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], White Sands Missile Range [WSMR], and NMDGF) wanted to formalize a management plan and determine if lamb survival would improve if pregnant ewes were not subjected to the stress of capture. Lamb survival improved in 1987, but no significant improvement occurred in 1986 or 1988. Overall, clinical scabies increased.

A management plan was drafted by NMDGF in 1987 (Haussamen 1987). An interim plan for the cooperative management of the San Andres bighorn (1988-91) was approved in October 1988. The goal of this plan is to re-populate all suitable habitat in the San Andres Moun- tains with desert bighorn based on the results of a 3-year mite-bighorn interaction study.

International Wildlife Veterinary Services (IWVS) was contracted by USFWS to conduct the 3-year study. The objectives of the study are to: (1) sample and radiocollar as many bighorn as possible during annual captures; (2) determine the prevalence of scabies infestation over time; (3) determine the overall health of the herd in regard to disease exposure, immunologic response, and genetics; and (4) recommend optimal management strategies for herd recovery.

The first capture initiating the 3-year mite-bighorn interaction study was conducted 19-23 November 1988. The capture was a cooperative effort between the USFWS, IWVS, NMDGF, and WSMR.

Red Rock Propagating Facility

To produce sufficient numbers of desert bighorn sheep to restock or supplement historic ranges on an annual basis, it will be necessary to achieve optimal production, survival, recruitment, sex and age ratios, and total numbers at fhe Red Rock propagating facility. The expansion of Red Rock to 800 ha, projected to be completed in spring 1990, is the first major improvement to date.


A model will be based on historical Red Rock population data and will be used to project future population size and optimal numbers and composition of sheep to be maintained at Red Rock and to be removed for transplants. Until this is done, transplants will continue to be conducted without regard to the effects of removal or what constitutes optimal transplant composition. A preliminary goal, to be tested with model simulations. is to obtain a breedine. nucleus of 65 ewes from - which 25 will be removed on an annual basis beginning in 1995.

A preliminary analysis of Red Rock population history from 1982- 89 indicated that once lambs survive to the end of the lambing season (Jun), almost all are recruited to the yearling cohort. Adult survival rates are also high. However, production and/or early lamb survival is lower than expected (expect an equal ratio of lambs to ewes; actual mean ratlo was 78 1ambs:lOO ewes k 8 SD). Causes of less than optimum production and/or lamb survival could be due to numerous factors, the most likely of which are social stress, disease, and/or nutritional deficiencies. Thus, survival may be improved by reducing social stress, mvestigating lamb disease processes, and improving forage quality and quantity.

The high number of rams at Red Rock has caused excessive harassment of ewes during the breeding season (A. Ford, Red Rock Manager, pers. commun.). Sandoval (1979) found the association among estrous ewes, lactating ewes, and rutting rams to be a major cause of lamb mortality in the San Andres. This association is even more deleterious in confined facilities. Therefore, it was decided to control breeding by segregating rams and ewes in the non-breeding season.

On 30-31 May 1989, 15 rams were removed from the ewe-lamb group to the 41 ha pasture by hazing with the helicopter drive-net (12 = 8) and capturing by net gun (12 = 7). Net-gunned bighorn were hobbled, blindfolded, wet-down, and slung in a cargo net to a processing station where they were disentangled, wet down again, monitored (temp, res- piration), ear-tagged, aged, blood sampled, administered antibiotics (6 cc) and Mu-se (1 cc), and released. Internal temperatures averaged 40.6 C (range = 38.9-41.7 C). The effect of high ambient temperature was ameliorated by early morning and late afternoon flights, short chase (l- 3 min) and handling times (X = 15 min), through wetting of the animal both on site and at the processing station, and use of the cargo net, which further cooled the animal.

All rams handled were in excellent condition and 2 (12 and 14 yr) weighed > 136 kg. These ram weights are higher than previously recorded (Hansen and Deming 1980).

When this operation was first conceived, the goal was to remove all the rams from the ewe and lamb groups. However, it was subsequently decided to leave some adult rams with the ewes due to their moderating effect on the herd. These rams will be allowed to remain with the ewes through the 1989 breeding season and replaced with other rams in subsequent seasons. Surplus rams will be moved to the ram pasture on an annual basis.

If lamb survival does not improve after maintaining 2 years of seg- regation, lamb diseases may be investigated. Red Rock's supplemental feed program is considered adequate as it is slmilar to that used in other

successful propagating facilities (J. DeForge, Bighorn Research Institute, pers. commun.). The vegetation within the pastures, however, is over- browsed and could benefit from improvement.

FUTURE PROJECTS

In 1989, the New Mexico State Legislature passed legislation that authorized 1 Rocky Mountain ram permit to be sold at auction. This will be the first auction of any wildlife species in New Mexico. The proceeds will be used solely for bighorn sheep (all subspecies) restoration, research, and management.

The NMDGF hired Bill Dunn in 1989 to conduct the evaluation of selected desert bighorn sheep ranges in order of suitability for desert bighorn transplants. This work will update the evaluations that Sandoval (1982) conducted and will also investigate some new areas.

LITERATURE CITED

Axtell, J. D. 1988. Post-release movements of desert bighorn sheep in the Alamo Hueco Mountains, New Mexico. M.S. Thesis, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces. 52pp.

Clark, R. K., D. A. Jessup, and R. A. Weaver. 1988. Scabies mite infestation in desert bighorn sheep from California. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 32: 13-1 5.

Elenowitz, A. S. and D. Humphreys. 1987. Status of bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 1986. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 31:30-32.

Gordon, S. P. 1953. Area-wide census of bighorn sheep population. N.M. Dep. Game and Fish. Fed. Aid Wildl. Restor. Job Completion Rep. Proj. W-68-R-1, Job 4. 2pp.

Gross, J. E. 1960. Progress of Mexican bighorn sheep life history and management investigations in the Big Hatchet Mountains of New Mexico. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 4:62-65.

Hansen, C. G. and 0. V. Deming. 1980. Growth and development. Pages 152-1 70 111 G. Monson and L. Sumner, eds. The desert bighorn. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson.

Haussamen, W. H. 1987. Mexican bighorn sheep recovery and management plan for the San Andres Mountains, New Mexico. N.M. Dep. Game and Fish. 10pp.

Rowland, M. M. and J. L. Schmidt. 198 1. Transplanting desert bighorn sheep-a review. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 25:25-28.

Sandoval, A. V. 1979. Preferred habitat of desert bighorn sheep in the San Andres Mountains, New Mexico. M.S. Thesis. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. 3 14pp.

-. 1980. Management of a psoroptic scabies epizootic in bighorn sheep (Ov~s canadeielzsis mexicana) in New Mexico. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 2 4 2 1-28.

-. 1982. Evaluation of the Peloncillo and Alamo Hueco mountains, New Mexico as potential desert bighorn habitat. Final Rept. N.M. Dep. Game and Fish. 122pp.

-, A. S. Elenowitz, and J. R. DeForge. 1987. Pneumonia in a transplanted population of bighorn sheep. Desert Bighorn Counc. Trans. 3 1:18-22.

SKILLS NEEDED IN TODAY'S WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Donald J. Armentrout Bureau of Land Management 1695 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92507

The western United States is experiencing increased resource demands that place restrictions on wildlife management. Two of these demands are mining, and wild horse and burro management. These are serious demands because they stem from strong legislation. The 1872 Mining Law and the Wild Horse And Burro Protection Act give these resources extraordinary rights that can and do conflict with wildlife management practices.

How wildlife managers should deal with challenges provided by this legislation and other challenges such as population growth and habitat loss is to seize the opportunity to develop and sharpen the "tion" skills: observation, evaluation, communication, integration, and negotiation.

OBSERVATION

Managers have been trained, as wildlife biologists, in the technical aspects of observation. It is second nature for managers to look at a steep rocky, rough area and visualize bighorn sheep habitat. But, this is not enough. Managers must learn to look at the situation they are involved with and see more. Managers look at a mining plan notice and, by nature, see only how much habitat may be lost and how hard they are going to have to fight to "save" it. They fail to see the legislative impacts of what is going on and the social, economic, and political impacts of the proposed mine or whatever is being analyzed. To ac- complish a complete and useful evaluation managers must include all impacts in observations.

EVALUATION

Technical aspects of the evaluation are easy to complete. Unfortu- nately wildlife managers often avoid the development of a positive strategy to effectively include wildlife into the political, social, and economic aspects of land use allocation. Are there species impacted that have strong legislative backing? Has there been strong public feeling toward the area in the past? Is there strong, positive public feeling right now that may favor wildlife? What are the alternatives? There are more alternatives than the 2 usually used by those in our profession: fighting "to the death" for the territory, regardless of its value, or giving up without trying because of perceived insurmountable odds. Let's face it, wildlifers are great martyrs but, is that the best managers can do for wildlife? Taking the opportunity to perfect the 3 remaining skills is probably the most difficult task wildlife biologists face.

COMMUNICATION

Good communication is a combination of verbalizing and listening (Fazio and Gilbert 1986). However, how managers apply these 2 major portions of the communication skill is the difference between success and failure for the resources involved.

Most wildlife managers graduated from college knowing they held the biological "truths" needed to manage wildlife. All their bosses needed to do was listen to them and all would be well with the world. What happened the first time these "truths" were voiced? Some got slapped down. This is particularly true for those who go to work in a multiple use agency. What hit us? All those other "truths" such as livestock, mining, forestry, politics, economics, and budgets lurking around the halls of our offices. The usual response is to not talk to those other specialists but, to confine our discussions to other biologists or anyone else sympathetic to our cause. When other programs impact wildlife we

restrict our intra-agency discussions to rushing into our supervisor's office to exclaim, "you have a problem!"

Informing supervisors they have a problem without giving them possible solutions leads to "positive reluctance" on their part that combines with "dynamic inactivism." In other words they will seem interested without listening and then dismiss what you have said while moving forward. If this happens, are wildlife managers being effective? Wildlife managers are paid to provide wildlife input but, that input has to include positive alternatives based on biological, political, and socioeconomic truths. Emotional outbursts and negative attitudes do not have a place in an effective wildlife program.

Interagency communication is also important for wildlife management. Wildlife biologists that work in the west have a unique situation. In 11 of the western states the states own the wildlife and the federal government manages most of the habitat. This is a political fact. Just because it is a political fact does not mean wildlife biologists have to be caught up in the struggles that sometimes occur between states and federal "rights." The state biologist questions why they should talk to the feds just because they manage the habitat. The federal biologist questions why they should talk to the state just because their actions impact the state's wildlife. Wildlife biologists have enough problems without falling into the trap of letting politics dictate their ability to communicate.

Listening is the second key part of communication and is used too selectively. Does the wildlife biologist really care what problems a ranch- er may be facing or what they think about wildlife? They should. Lis- tening to those other people outside wildlife and showing an interest in what they have to say is part of good wildlife management. It is funny sometimes how your showing the ability to listen to someone else makes it easier for them to listen to you.

INTEGRATION

Failure to integrate wildlife management between agencies leads to obvious problems. The most obvious is allowing the opposition the opportunity to divide and defeat. Neither are part of positive wildlife management.

Impacts of failure in intra-agency integration produces results more subtle than interagency failure but, equally deadly. Kennedy (1986) points out wildlife biologists have difficulty becoming team members in a multiple use agency. The most tragic finding in Kennedy's (1986) work is that most biologists don't care!

Most wildlife biologists would rather work in a vacuum. I love to do my job out in the back country away from everyone. Unfortunately I cannot afford that luxury all the time if wildlife is going to be managed properly. Integration means being a team member whenever possible.

If wildlife managers apply the previous "tion" skills judiciously, being a team member is possible. Being a team member does not mean selling out but, being an integral part of a cohesive unit. Once you are a part of the team it becomes easier to be heard, have your point of view given full weight, and your alternatives given full consideration. You don't always get your way but you are given a working forum in which to present your point. Successful integration makes the chances for successful negotiation 10 times easier than when you are on the outside looking in.

NEGOTIATION

Aha! you say, here comes the compromise and the well being of wildlife should not be compromised. The greatest amount of compro- mising that is done to wildlife is done by the wildlife biologist for wildlife's "betterment." A wise man, who happens to be a wildlife biologist once told me wildlife will survive in spite of the best efforts of the biologists. Fifteen years later I can agree with him. Compromise can be good or bad for wildlife depending upon the situation. Failure to compromise or negotiate at the right time can be disastrous.

There are only a very few times wildlife managers have the legislative strength to not have to give concessions. The most obvious of these legislative acts is the Threatened and Endangered Species Act (T and E Species Act). However strong it may be the T and E Species Act has not been tested against the 1872 Mining Law. Do you want to be the


first? Is i t worth being the first? It is a wise person who can choose their battles. The times to stand firm on your strengths and not negotiate should be picked carefully.

Is negotiating 1 on 1 necessary? If you have taken the opportunity to perfect the first 4 "tion" skills negotiating may be a 1 on I necessity within a team but when applied to those outside the team it becomes a tag team event. Imagine the impact when a Bureau of Land Manage- ment area manager, geologist, range conservationist, environmental planner, and wildlife biologist are all expressing concerns about wildlife. The miner may not care about wildlife. The law does not require them to consider wildlife except T and E species. Miners are not however, stupid. They know the way to keep down the bad publicity that gets laws changed is to work with the team as much as possible. You may not get the whole pie but you would be amazed at what is sometimes offered.

The 1 caution I offer is to negotiate without rancor. You want to win for improved wildlife management and conditions on a continual basis not just once. It is better in the long run to be on a speaking basis with

your advisories then to smack them down severely 1 time only to have them dedicated to smacking you down every time after that.

Does all this work? You can answer that yourself by looking at the successful wildlife management programs you have seen. From my experience it does work. Is it easy? Learning and applying the 5 "tion" skills is not easy by any means for any wildlife biologist. The alternative to not learning and applying these skills is unnecessary losses in wildlife management and that is too high of a price to pay for not undergoing some temporary learning discomfort.

LITERATURE CITED

Kennedy, J. J. 1986. The early career development of traditional and non-traditional Forest Service professionals. Trans. West. Sect. The Wildl. Soc. 22:34-38.

Fazio, J. R. and D. L. Gilbert. 1986. Public relations and commu- nications for natural resource managers. Second ed. Kendall and Hunt Publ., Dubuque, Ia. 399pp.

RECENT ITERALTURE 1989

Alderman, J. A., P. R. Krausman, and B. D. Leopold. 1989. Die1 activity of female desert bighorn sheep in western Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:264-27 1.

Armentrout, D. J., and W. R. Brigham. 1988. Habitat suitability rating system for desert bighorn sheep in the basin and range province. U.S. Bur. Land Manage., Tech. Note 384. 18pp.

Etchberger, R. C., P. R. Krausman, and R. Mazaika. 1989. Mountain sheep habitat characteristics in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness, Arizona. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:264-27 1.

Garlinger, B. H. 1987. Habitat evaluation of historic desert bighorn range in the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains. Admin. Rpt., Kern River Wildl. Sanct., Onyx, Calif. 58pp.

Jessup, D. A,, R. K. Clark, R. A. Weaver, and M. D. Kock. 1988. The safety and cost-effectiveness ofnet-gun capture of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadetzsis rzelsorz~]. J . Zoo Med. l9:208-2 13.

Krausman, P. R., B. D. Leopold, R. F. Seegmiller, and S. G. Torres. 1989. Relationships between desert bighorn sheep and habitat in western Arizona. Wildl. Monogr. 102. 66pp.

Miller, G. D., and W. S. Gaud. 1989. Composition and variability of desert bighorn sheep diets. J. Wildl. Manage. 53597-606.

Compiled by Richard C. Etchberger, School of Renewable Natural Resources, 2 10 Biological Sciences East, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. Material for inclusion on this list should be submitted to the compiler.

I REVIEWERS FOR THE 1989 TRANSACTIONS I James A. Bailey David A. Jessup John A. Bissonette Raymond M. Lee Richard C. Etchberger Milton P. Lipson Fred S. Guthery Rosemary Mazaika

Ted H. Noon Sanford D. Schemnitz Norman S. Smith Mark C. Wallace

30-YEAR INDEX, 1957-1986

STEVEN D. KOVACH, P.O. Box 1701, San Bruno, CA 94066

This 30-year index is divided into 2 sections: subject and author. The index includes 597 papers, 32 discussions, 14 memorials and dedica- tions, 4 opening remarks, 3 bibliographies, and 2 poems from 371 authors. Because the principal topic of the Desert Bighorn Council Trar~sactions is desert races of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), I do not make reference to each subspecies. Other races of bighorn sheep and other species are indexed separately.

From 1957 through 1967 discussions of topics were included in the Transactions. I included these discussions in the subject index.

Key words were not published with papers during the first 30 years of the Transactio~zs. Key words used in this index are based upon my interpretation of each paper, with assistance from P. R. Krausman.

During the preparation of the index, I saw the development of the Desert Bighorn Council and of bighorn research and management. As an example, state status reports expanded from documenting hunting programs to describing every facet of bighorn sheep management. I catalogued the major topics of state status reports; however, as they grew in complexity, I undoubtedly missed some topics that will be of particular interest to some users. If so, I apologize and encourage users not to overlook state status reports when researching topics.

Each entry is preceded by a volume number rather than the last 2 digits of the year as was used in the 15-year index. As most volume numbers are inconspicuous, missing, or difficult to extrapolate the following chart is presented to assist the user.

Year - 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966

Vol. no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

Year - 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Vol. no. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Year - 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Vol. no. 2 1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

I acknowledge the encouragement of my friends within the Desert Bighorn Council during the preparation of this work. I especially acknowledge Carolyn, who endured my unending hours reading transactions and key punching the computer.

SUBJECTS

A

Abnormal Dental Wear malocclusion, 1 :3 8-42 osteonecrosis, 9:75-81; 10236-97; 25:33-35

Activity Patterns bedding, 6:57-64 daily, 2:67-72 ewe, diel, 29:24-26 in relation to temperature, 8:103-112; 13:55-63 seasonal, 25: 17-24 summer, 2994-26

Addax water metabolism, 7:26-39

Addax spp. see Addax

Age-Weight Relationships ewe, 26:38-42 ram, 26:3842

Ammospermophilus leucurus see Antelope Squirrel, White-tailed

Amrnospermophilus nelsoni see Antelope Squirrel, Nelson's

Ammotragus Iervia see Barbary Sheep

Antelope Squirrel Nelson's, water metabolism, 7:26-39 White-tailed, water metabolism, 726-39

Antilocapra americana see Pronghorn

Antilope spp. see Blackbuck

Aquila chrysaetos see Eagle, Golden

Arizona abnormal dental wear, 25:33-35 activity patterns, 8:103-112; 13:55-63; 25:17-24; 29:24-26 behavior, 5:27-29; 7: 15 1-1 55 census by helicopter, 13:48-54 competition

cattle, 20:42-45; 30%-13 feral burro, l8:4045; 19:45; 20:42-45 livestock, 16: 105-1 1 1

demographics, 2:6-12; 6:83-86; 7:l5 1-155; 8:37-42; 8:117-121; 12: 5-6; 23:94-95; 25:17-24

density, 7:61-63 diseases, 4231-84; 23:25-27; 24:44-46; 25:33-35; 26:4244; 27%-10;

29:l-3 distribution, 16:30-35; 16: 105-1 11; 23:96-106 ectoparasites, 26:42-44; 27%-10 feral burro, 8:29-35; 19:45; 21:7-8; 22:36 food habits, 8:29-35; 20:4245; 26:34-38; 26:44-46; 30:8-13 general ecology, 7:58-60; 7:72-83; 8:117-121; 23:40-46 group size, 25: 17-24 habitat

description, 196-30; 7:72-83; 13:64-67 loss, l8:4O-l5 selection, 6:83-86; 13:55-63; 303-13

historic distribution, 7:61-63 history, 26: 108-1 10

human, 7:72-83 home range, 2320-24; 27:12-16; 28:32-36 hunting, 2:6-12; 4:8 1-84; 5:84-86; 6:114-116; 7: 169-174; 1136-93;

12:5-6; 14:179-188; 15:l-6; 23:94-95; 24:76-77; 25:44-46; 26: 108-1 10; 27:39-41

regulations, 26-12; 7: 169-1 74; 1 199-93 impacts, human, 4:35-37; 14:179-188; 18:40-45; 24:52-56; 25: 1-5 management, 3:24-29; 7:114-119; 1 l:l3-15; 13:6467; 14:179-188;

15:l-6; 23:94-95; 26:108-110; 28:30-31 habitat, 22:36-38 Indian reservation, 7: 1 14-1 19 law enforcement, 3:33-36 livestock, 22:36-38 recommendations, 4:41-44; 13:55-63

measurements from harvested rams, 2:6-12; 3:24-29; 12:5-6; 23:4046 weights, 26:38-42

mortality, 9:55; 14: 179-188; 26:44-46 movements, 2:6-12; €2103-1 12; 8:117-121; 13:55-63; 20:42-45; 23:

20-24; 26:lll-112; 27:l-2; 27:12-16; 28:32-36; 29:20-23 mule deer, 4:97-100 population estimates, 17: 123-136; 23:96-106 propagation efforts, 17: 1 17-122 reintroduction, 17: 1 17-122; 19:42; 24:76-77; 25:29-30; 25:44-46;

25:46-49; 26:108-110; 27: 12-16; 27:3941

22 30-YEAR INDEX Kovach

research, 25:44-46; 26:108-110; 27:39-41 sex ratios, 7% 1-63 state status, 1:5-7; 6:114116; 7:169-174; 14:179-188; 16:105-111;

23:94-95; 24:76-77; 25:44-46; 26:108-110; 27:39-41; 28:51- 53; 29:34-36; 30~20-21

status, 1:16-19; 16:30-35; 16:3646 time-activity budgets, 1355-63; 28:23-25 water

developments, 1:26-30; 7:151-155; 16:88-91; 18:25-27; 23:50-56; 28:12-13; 29:13-14

use, 8:37-42; 20:4245; 23:50-56 use by cattle, 20:42-45 use by time of day, 8:103-112 visitation rate, 5:27-29

Awards Bighorn Trophy

Aldous, Clair, 13:iii Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, 1854 Deming, Ock, 7:xix Hansen, Charles G., l0:iii James, Steve, Jr., 12:iii Russo, John P., 9:iii Wells, Ralph and Florence, 6:x

Honor Plaque Hansen, Pat, 13% Kelly, Warren, 30:vii Naval Weapons Center, 29:vii Nevada Operations Office, Atomic Energy Commission, 12:iii

B

Baja California age of harvested rams, 20:23-24 behavior, 20:24-25 demograph density, 20: 18-21 distribution, 5: 13-16 ectoparasites, 23:78 endoparasites, 23:78 food habits, 20:2 1-22 habitat, description, 5: 13-16; 558-74 hunting, 20:23-24 impacts, human, 14: 177-1 78 management

general, 20: 12 law enforcement, 14: 177-178

measurements, skull, 20:27-29 status, 14: 177-1 78; 20: 18-2 1 taxonomy, 20:27-29 vegetation, 5:68-74

Barbary Sheep competition from, 4: 15-1 6

theoretical, 11: 16-26; 23:4749 demographics, 26: 12-1 5 diseases, 22:26-3 1 distribution, 1:34; 25:9-15 ectoparasites, 2: 13-16; 4: 17-22 endoparasites, 2: 13-1 6; 4: 17-22; 1052-64; 22:26-3 1 evolution, 1 1 : 16-26 food habits, 10:62-64; 11: 16-26; 22:26-3 1 group size, 26: 12-1 5 home range, 22:26-3 1 hunting, 2:13-16; 7:175-177 introduction history, 25:9-15 measurements, from harvested rams, 2: 13-16 population establishment, 1052-64 reproduction, 1 1 : 16-26 status, 28:37-38

Behavior at water sources, 5:27-29 aunting, 7:l5 1-155 breeding, 20:4245 captive lamb, 859-76; 8:145-152 captive reared upon release, 15:97-100; 2 1 :9-1 1 development of captive lamb, 8:69-76; 8:145-152 disturbance distance, 17:53-58 group

cohesion, 28: 1-8 fidelity, 2 1 :25-28 general, 20:24-25

hierarchial organization, 20: 15-1 7 home range fidelity, 14:5 1-53 interaction with feral burros, 19:45 interpreted from photographs, 7: 120-12 1 lambing, 16: 1 17-1 19

area selection, 7: 15 1-1 55 neonate, 16: 1 17-1 19 reaction to

aircraft, 13:48-54; 299-7 humans, 4:72-75; 21:30-32; 23:57-61; 29:4-7; 30:5-7 vehicles, 29:4-7 watercraft, 30:5-7

related to tongue color, 14: 14-22 resulting from over-crowding, 15:46-52 unique, 14: 1 16-122 within an enclosure, 19: 19-27; 2 1:9-11

Bias data

collection, 2358-70 interpretation, 23:68-70

food habits, 20:46-48 Bibliography

bighorn, 4:l-11; 5:110-111; 10:119- chemical immobilization, 11:27-52 exotics, 9: 19-26

Black Bear management and status in California, 8: 153-163

Blackbuck water metabolism, 7:26-39

Blood chemistry

progesterone, 30:24 values, 2655-76

collection technique, 24:33-35 hemoglobin

analysis, 20: 13-14 patterns, 17:llO-116

hematology, 12:28-37; 14:109-115; 2655-76 of domestic sheep, 12:28-37

mean serologic values, 26:2 1-25 Bobcat

predation on bighorn, 5:38-41 Bos spp.

see Livestock, Cattle Burro

see Feral Burro

C California

aboriginal hunting, l2:40-49 archeology, petroglyphs, 12:40-49 barbary sheep, 10:62-64 black bear, 8:153-163 competition

cattle, 30: 14-19


elk, 14:127-146 feral burro, 495-87; 939-92; 16:56-65; 17:106-109; 18:40-45;

26:8 1-87 human, 18: 18-24 mule deer, 14: 127-146 water, 18:18-24; 26:87-96

census, 7:135-138; 7:185-192; 19:44; 20:32-35 demographics, 9:49-52; l7:8 1-88; 22:4344; 24:29-32 disease, 20:50; 24:14-18; 26:65-76; 26:76-81 distribution, 7: 126-132; 9:49-52; 14:l-8; 14:127-146; 16:56-65; 17:

81-88; 19~51-53 ectoparasites, 14: 123-126; 20:36-39 elk, 8:153-163 endoparasites, 14: 123-126; 14: 127-146; 20:36-39 extirpation, 25:36-38 feral burro, 4%-90; 5:32-33; 12:59-62; 14:l-8; 17:22-42; 17:90-

97; 17:lOl-102; 2631-87; 2537-96; 27:17-25 feral goat, 10:62-64 food habits, 4:72-75; 7:126-132; 9:35-39; 12:54-58; 14:123-126; 14:

127-146; 16:21-29; 17:81-88; 26:81-87; 30:14-19 general ecology, 1:22-25; 7:167-168; 12:54-58; 14: 123-126 habitat

acquisition, 20:4 description, 7: 167-1 68; 9:35-39; 12:54-58 loss, l8:4O45 management, 7: 133-1 34; 9:53-54 selection, 7:193-198; 18:4-17; 23:57-61; 30:14-19 utilization, 4:72-75; 9:l-5; 15:38-45

historic distribution, 3:58-66; 4:72-75; 9:4048 status, 9:l-5; 9:40-48

home range, 22:21-22; 23:71-77; 26:65-76 impacts

feral burros, 4535-87 from off road vehicles, 17:8 1-88 human, 3:69-75; 9:l-5; 14:l-8;

16:ll2-116; 17:53-58; 18:18-24; 18:4045; 19:51-53; 21:30- 32; 23:57-61; 26:50-55

management feral burro, 12:59-62 general, 4:72-75; 7: 126-132; 11:59-63; 1 1:77-79; 13:68-70 habitat, 3:69-75; 9:53-54; 12:50-53; 14:9-13; 15:18-23; 20:4 law enforcement, 3:37-40 multiple use, 10:7 1-77 needs, 9:49-52 state-wide, 8: 153-163; 17:2242; 21:6-7

mortality, 17:81-88; 26:32-33; 26:65-76; 26:76-81 mountain lion, 8: 153-1 63 movements, 6:43-51; 22:21-22; 23:71-77; 24:78-83; 26:65-76 mule deer, 7:126-132; 9:l-5; 10:62-64 pathology, 15: 78-8 1 population estimates, 17: 123-136 predation, 19:5 1-53 pronghorn, 8: 153-163 propagation efforts, 8:l-3; 20:50; 21%; 22:5; 23238-89; 26:32-33 reintroduction, 16:84-87; 17:19-21; 18:46-47; 19:36-37; 20:50; 21:

8; 22:5; 23:88-89; 24:62; 24:78-83; 26:32-33; 26:116-118; 27: 4 4 4 5 ; 28:55-56

research, 27:4445 state status, 1:8-11; 3:30-32; 6:117-118; 8:153-163; 16:56-65; 21:

6-7; 27:44-45; 28:48 status, 1:22-25; 9: 1-5; 9:40-48; 14:127-146

historic, 3:58-66; 9:l-5; 9:40-48 population, 28:4445 research, 3:58-66

time-activity budgets, 23:33-36 use of volunteers, 26:56-58 wild pig, 8:153-163; 10:62-64

water developments, 9:49-52; 12:38-39; 13: 103-107; 14: 147-148; 16:

92-96; 20:4; 26:63-64 distribution, 20:32-35 use as influenced by feral burros, 26:87-96

zebra, 10:62-64 Camel

water metabolism, 7:26-39 requirements, 2:64-66

Camelus dromedarius see Camel

Canis latrans see Coyote

Capra spp. see Goat

Capture results, 4:58-59; 2k39-40; 28:41-43

Cervus elaphus see Elk

Chemical Immobilization atrophine sulfate, 2 1: 18-20 azaperone, 16:97-101; 17: 155-163; 18:61; 25:57-59; 26:3842 bibliography, 1 1 :27-52 butropine, 19:28-32 chloral hydrate, 2:36-39 chloropromazine hydrochloride, 1 1:27-52 diazepam, 11:27-52; 14:149-169; 25:57-59 discussion, 1 :88-93 feral burro, 18:6 1 flaxedil, 2:36-39 hyaluronidase, 25:57-59 induction, reactions dunhg, 16:97-10 1 M-5050, 16:97-101; 21:18-20 M-99, 14:149-169; 16:97-101; 17:73-80; 17:155-163; 18:61; 19:28-

32; 2O:ll-12; 21:18-20; 25:57-59; 26:3842 mule deer, 4:97-100 nicotine alkaloid, 4:97-100 nicotine salicylate, 2:36-39 phencyclidine hydrochloride, 11:27-52; 14: 149-169 sodium pentobarbital, 14: 149-1 69 stresnil, 19:28-32 succinylcholine chloride, 7:139-144; 11:27-52; 14:149-169; 17:73-

80 xylazine, 25:57-59

Colorado activity patterns, 6:57-64 distribution, 20:5-10 endoparasites, 21: 11-12; 21:12-14 hunt, 20:5-10 interactions with livestock, 6:57-64 mineral lick, 6:57-64 mortality, 21:ll-12 movements, 6:57-64; 27:34-36 reintroduction, 25:38-42; 27:34-36 state status, 20:5-10; 30:22

Commentary bighorn in Arizona, 18:28 ecological requirements, 9:49-52 land management decision making, 13: 108-1 13 management, 10:s-8 National Park Service wildlife management, 1 1:59-63 need for refuges, 10:21-23 purpose of the Desert Bighorn Council, 10:14; 10:9-12 questions needing answers, 12:70-75 recreational impacts on refuges, 10: 13-20 research needs, 1 130-85 species management, 8: 153-163

24 30-YEAR INDEX 0 Kovach

Competition barbary sheep, 4: 15-16; 1 1:16-26; 23:47-49 cattle

forage, 28: 18-22; 30:8-13; 30: 14-19 habitat, 20: 15-17; 28: 18-22; 303-1 3 water, 20:42-45

elk, forage, 14: 127-146 exotics, 9: 19-26 feral burro, 3:4-8; 16:56-65; 17:106-109; 18:40-45; 19:45

discussion, 1 :70-76 forage, 9239-92; 20:42-45; 26:81-87 water, 3:l-3; 4:85-87; 20:42-45; 2637-96

livestock, 16:105-111; 23:37-39; 27:31-33 forage, 28: 18-22; 309-13 habitat, 14:63-65; 28:18-22; 30:8-13

mule deer, 10:36-46 forage, 14: 127-146 habitat, 20: 15-1 7

spatial, 13: 108-1 13 summary, 8:165-181 theoretical, 23:47-49 water

human, 18: 18-24 use as influenced by feral burros, 26:87-96

Conservation Groups Arizona, 16:47-55 Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, 24:8-10 Nevada, 16: 102-104

Coyote predation on bighorn, 5:34-37; 19:5 1-53

Cynomys spp. see Prairie Dog

Demographics Arizona, 2:6-12; 6333-86; 7:151-155; 8:37-42; 8:117-121; 12:5-6;

23:94-95; 25:17-24 Baja California, 20: 18-2 1 barbary sheep, 26:12-15 California, 9:49-52; 17:8 1-88; 22:43-44; 24:29-32 discussion, 1 :6 1-63 Nevada, 6:73-82; 9:27-34; 14:66-93; 15:12-17; 16:66-78; 17:l-14;

17:59-72; 19:15-18; 20:ll; 21:5; 222-4, 23:107-108; 24:71-74; 25:50-52; 26:113-114; 27:29-30

New Mexico, 13: 1 14-129; 23:92-94 seasonal, 25: 17-24 Utah, 14: 171-176; 226-9; 23:79-80; 23:89-91; 24:50-5 1

Density Arizona, 7:6 1-63 Baja California, 20: 18-2 1 Nevada, 7:6 1-63

Dental Anomalies malocclusion, 1:3842 osteonecrosis, 9:75-8 1; 10:86-97; 25:33-35 teeth, deviations from normal, 9:75-81; 10:78-85

Desert Bighorn Council field trip report, 9:v goals, 10:1-4 history, 26:lOO-101 purpose, 10:9-12 transactions review, 6: 13-20

Dipodomys merriami see Kangaroo Rat, Merriam's

Discussion census

data, 5:108-109 techniques, 1%-93; 5:112

chemical immobilization, 1:88-93 competition with feral burros, 1:70-76 demographics, 1 :6 1-63 exotics, 7:5 1-52 feral burro

general, 3: 14 management, 1:70-76

food habits, 1:64-67 general, 6:52 general ecology, 3:67-68; 4:107; 6:lO-12 group size, 1:68-69 home range, 5:99-102 human impacts, 3:76 hunting, 1:77-87; 5:ll6; 6:124-125; 7:17-18; 11:8-12

regulations, 1 1:8-12 interpretation of sign, 1:94-96 lamb survival, 1:6 1-63 management, 6: 13-20; 6:21-22 name origins, 3:32; 3:41 nutrition, 1 :64-67 parasites, 6:72 population

estimates, 5: 108-109 regulation, 7:7 1

predation, 1:43-50; 5: 113; 7:84-86 reproduction, 1:56-60; 7: 112-1 13 status of desert bighorn, 5: 114-1 15 techniques, 6:8-9; 6:82; 7:84-86 water

metabolism, 7:40-4 1 requirements, 1 :5 1-55

wildlife management in Mexico, 7:90-9 1 Disease

anaplasmosis, 26:76-8 1 barbary sheep, 2226 bluetongue, 10:59-6 1; 1330-85; 16:79-83; 20:50; 22:26-3 1; 26:65-

76; 26:76-81; 27:ll-12 bovine rhinotracbeitis, 2226-3 1 bronchopneumonia, 17:47-52 brucellosis, 2: 13-1 6; 4: 17-22; 4:8 1-84 capture myopathy, 21:14-16; 22:31-36

prevention, 22:3 1-36 chronic sinusitis, 4:8 1-84; 22: 16-20; 2325-27; 23:27-32; 24: 14-1 8;

26: 18-21; 27: 11-12; 27:3 1-33; 29:l-3; 2929-33 treatment, 26:21-25

contagious ecthema, 20:50; 26:65-76; 26:76-81; 27:ll-12 epizootic hemorrhagic disease, 26:65-76; 26:76-8 1 footrot, 29:29-33 goiter, 14:28-41 leptospirosis, 4:8 1-84; 26: 15-1 8; 26:76-8 1 lumpy jaw, 25:33-35 management, 2421-28 osteonecrosis, 25:33-35 pneumonia, 1:38-42; 14:28-41; 16:79-83; 20:51-52

fibrinous, 2 1: 17-1 8 scabies, 12:76-77; l3:33-42; 14: 107-108; 26:42-44; 27%-10; 29:29-

3 3 control, 25:66-68 psoroptic, 24: 18-20; 24:2 1-28; 24:44-46

soremouth, 29:29-33 toxoplasmosis, 26:76-8 1

Distribution Arizona, 16:30-35; 16:105-111; 23:96-106 Baja California, 5: 13-1 6 barbary sheep, 1:34; 25:9-15 California, 7:126-132; 9:49-52; 14: 1-8; 14:127-146; 16:56-65; 17:

81-88; 19151-53 Colorado, 20:5-10 desert pronghorn, 12:63-69


influences elevation, l7:8 1-88 human presence, 26:50-55

Mexico, 3:77-79 Nevada, 5:9-12; 14:66-93; 15:12-17; 16:66-78 New Mexico, 13:76-79

Rocky Mountain bighorn, 1:34 Sonora, 2025-26 Utah, 10:56-58; 11:64-72 see also Historic Distribution

Dog wild, water metabolism, 7:26-39

E

Eagle bald, predation on bighorn, 5:9-12 golden, predation on bighorn, 5:47-50

Economics hunting, 13:98-102; 293-12 non-harvest value, 3:53-57

Ectoparasite barbary sheep, 2: 13-1 6; 4: 17-22 general, 2: 13-16 mite, 5:75-79; 1276-77; 13:6-13; 14:107-108; 26:42-44; 279-10

control, 27:6-8 t ~ k , 4:17-22; 5:75-79; 6:69-71; 14:123-126; 20:36-39; 23:78

Elk forage competition, 14: 127-146 management and status in California, 8: 153-1 63

Embryo examination, 16: 14-20 handling, 16: 14-20 recovery, 1 6: 14-20

Endoparasite barbary sheep, 2: 13-1 6; 4: 17-22; 10:62-64; 22:26- blood, 4: 17-22 cestode, 15:7-11; 23:78 cyst, 5:75-79 helminth, 23:78 general, 2:13-16; 4: 17-22; 29:29-33 lung worm, 1:38-42; 2:57-63; 6:69-71; 8:5-9; 14:28-41; 14: 127-146;

15:7-11; 17:47-52; 21:ll-12 life cycle, 21: 11-12 transmission routes, 21: 11-12

pinworm, 6:69-71; 8:5-9; 14:123-126 protozoa, 5:75-79; 10:56-58 roundworm, 5:75-79; 10:56-58; 20:36-39 screw worm, 6: 129-1 30 tapeworm, 5:75-79; 6:69-71; 8:5-9; 1056-58; 14:28-41; 15:7-11;

20:36-39 threadworm, 14: 127-146 treatments, 2 1: 12-14 whipworm, 6:69-71; 8:5-9

Equus ashus see Feral Burro

Equus hemionus see Onager

Equus spp. see Zebra

Evolution ancestral stock, 17: 1 10-1 16 as driven by environmental changes, 6:93-113 barbary sheep, 1 1 : 16-26 bighorn-barbary sheep compared, 11: 16-26 Ovis spp., 23:2-19 summary, 8:165-18 1

Exotics bibliography, 9: 19-26 competition, 9: 19-26

discussion, 7:5 1-52 general ecology, 7:42-50 management, 7:42-50; 9:19-26; 12:59-62 status, 9: 19-26 superiority theory, 7:42-50 see also Barbary Sheep see also Feral Burro see also Wild Pig

Extirpation recent in California, 25:36-38

Felis concolor see Mountain Lion

Felis rufus see Bobcat

Fence specifications, 15:53-62; 22:36-38 to exclude feral burros, 17: 106-109

Feral Burro agency perspectives, 13:9 1-97 chemical immobilization, 18:6 1 committee report, 18:62-63; 26: 101-102; 27:37-38; 28:57; 29:42; 30:

23 competition, 1:70-76; 3:4-8; 1656-65; 18:40-45; I9:45

forage, 939-92; 19:45; 20:42-45; 26:81-87 water, 3: 1-3; 4:85-87; 17: 106-109; 20:42-45; 2697-96

control, 13:9 1-97 discussion, 1:70-76; 3: 14 distribution, California, 17:22-42; 17:90-97 ecology, 5:32-33 food habits, 4:88-90; 8:29-35; 19:45; 22:lO-16; 2631-87

overlap with bighorn, 8:29-35; 22:lO-16; 26531-87 general, 13:91-97; 14: 1-8; 1799; 18:61; 19:58-60 habit

degradation, 3:9-10; 20:54-55; 2123-25 utilization, 19:45

impacts to lizard fauna, 27: 17-25 rodent fauna, 27: 17-25 vegetation, 27:17-25

interaction with bighorn, 19:45 legislation, 3:ll-13; 16:9-13; 17: 101-102 management

Arizona, 22:36-38 California, 1259-62 National Park Service, 17:98-100; 20:54-55; 21:7-8

management policy Bureau of Land Management, 1 7: 103-1 05 National Park Service, 17:98-100

movements, 19:45 population estimation, 2245-46 research needs, 4:9 1-96 status, Arizona, 1: 16-1 9 viability factors, 2245-46 water, 3: 1-3; 2697-96

Food Habits adult, 26:34-38 alfalfa consumption, 6:73-82 Arizona, 8:29-35; 20:42-45; 26:34-38; 26:44-46; 30%-13 artificial milk for lambs, 8: 145-1 52 Baja California, 20:2 1-22 barbary sheep, 10:62-64; 1 1: 16-76; 22:26-3 1 bias in

data collection, 20:46-48 reporting, 20:46-48

browse species, 7: 126-1 32 California, 4:72-75; 7:126-132; 9:35-39; 12:54-58; 14:123-126; 14:

127-146; 1621-29; 17:81-88; 26:81-87; 30:14-19


cattle, 303-1 3; 30:14-19 discussion, 1 :64-67 feral burro, 4:88-90; 8:29-35; 19:45; 22: 10-1 6

overlap with bighorn, 8:29-35; 22:lO-16; 2691-87 lamb, 8: 145-152; 20:40-41; 26:34-38 mineral deficiency, items to make up for, 13:27-32 mule deer, 10:62-64; 10:65-70; 1k36-46; 22: 10-16

overlap with bighorn, 1055-70 Nevada, 6:73-82; 8:43-67; 8:85-93; 8:95-102; 8:137-143; 9:27-34;

10:65-70; 19:61-68; 20:40-41; 21:32-6 1 New Mexico, 2:13-16; 28: 1-8 nutrition analysis, 13:6-13 preferred, 1 O:65-70 ram, 26:44-46

hunter killed, 13:6-13 Rocky Mountain bighorn, 13:86-90 seasonal, 895-93; 8:95-102; 8:137-143; 14:127-146; 1621-29; 21:

32-61; 26:3438; 26: 104-106; 28:l-8 Texas, 13:80-85 tahr, 10:62-64 Utah, l3:6-13; 13:27-32; 26: 104-106; 27:25-28; 28: 18-22

G

Gazella spp. see Gazelle

Gazelle water metabolism, 7:26-39

General data extrapolation from photographs, 7: 120-121 ecological questions, 12:70-75 first North American Wild Sheep Conference, 16: 1-2 general thoughts, 7: 19-25 opening remarks, 5:6; 8:xv-xviii; 8:xix-xxi overview of characteristics, 8: 165-1 8 1 research questions petroglyphs, 12:40-49 valid observations, k29-40 welcome, 1:2

General Ecology adaptations, 6:93-113 Arizona, 7:58-60; 7:72-83; 8:117-121; 23:4046 California, 1:22-25; 7: 167-168; 12:54-58; 14:123-126 desert pronghorn, 12:63-69 discussion, 3:67-68; 4:107; 6:lO-12 exotics, 7:42-50 Nevada, 9:27-34 Oregon, 24:63-70 Pleistocene era, 6:93-113 requirements, 24: 1-7 review, 6:lO-12 superiority of exotics theory, 7:42-50 summary, 8:165-181 Utah, 10:56-58; 19:7-11 Wynne-Edwards theory, 7:64-71

Genetics allelic frequency, 25:5-6 chromosome analysis, 19:46-50; 20: 13-14 horn size, 2: 17-20 Iranian sheep, 20: 13-14 karyotype, 17:llO-116 management implications, 18:50-52 research needs, 18:50-52 survey, 23:63-66 theory, 23:63-66 transfenins

analysis, 19:46-50; 20:114; 25:5-6 Nevada, 18:38-39 Utah, 18:38-39

vigor, 23:63-66

Goat domestic, habitat management, 7: 133-1 34 feral, California, 1052-64

Ground Squirrel Mohave, water metabolism, 7:26-39 round-tailed, water metabolism, 7:26-39

Group Fidelity Nevada, 21:25-28 post release, 26:8-11

Group Size barbary sheep, 26: 12-15 behavior, 28: 1-8 discussion, 1 :68-69 influences, 21 :25-28 monthly, 21:25-28 seasonal, 25: 17-24

H

Habitat acquisition, 20:4 carrying capacity estimates, 8: 133-1 35 characteristics, 16:36-46; 2 1:29-30; 23:62-63 classification, 10: 1 1 1-1 18 comparison, 23:37-39 condition, 14: 127-1 46 degradation

feral burros, 3:9-10; 20:54-55; 21:23-25 overgrazing, 2 1 :2 1-23

evaluation, 26:47-49 impacts

from humans, 9: 15-1 8 from recreation, 10: 13-20

loss from human use, 16: 1 12-1 16; l8:40-45 sources of, 5:103-107; 16:105 Utah, 13:33-42

management, 3:69-75; 6:41-42; 7:133-134; 8:133-135; 9:53-54; 10: 53-55; 12:50-53; 14:9-13; 14:99-106; 15:18-23; 17:43-46; 20: 4; 22:36-38

plan process, 13: 14-2 1 modeling, 14:66-93 requirements, 24: 1-7 type conversion, 10:53-55

Habitat Description Arizona, 1:26-30; 7:72-83; 13:64-67 Baja California, 5: 13-16; 5:68-74 California, 7:167-168; 9:35-39; 12:54-58 general, 1 :26-30 Nevada, 8:43-67 New Mexico, 23:62-63 Sonora, 9: 15-1 8

Habitat Selection bedding sites, 13: 114-129; l8:4-l7 California, 7:193-198; 18:4-17; 23:57-61; 30:14-19 cattle, 20: 15-17; 28:18-22; 30%-13

with, 28: 18-22; 303-13 without, 28: 18-22

ewe, 693-86 forage influences, 7: 193-198 indicators for, 18:4-17 interpreted from skull localities, 8:43-67 in relation to temperature, 13:55-63 lamb, 693-86 mule deer, 9: 1-5 ram, 6:83-86 seasonal, 7: 193-198 slope, 30:8-13 Utah, 26: 104-106; 28:18-22 water influences, 7: 193-198


Habitat Utilization by herd, 9: 11-14 California, 4:72-75; 9:l-5; 15:3845 distance from water, 13:6-13 ewe, 28: 1-8 feral burro, 19:45 influenced by

cattle, 20: 15-1 7 mule deer, 20: 15-1 7

modeling, 14:66-93 Nevada, 9: 1 1-14; 14:66-93 New Mexico, 13:114-129; 28:l-8 unusual, 9: 1-5 Utah, 13:6-13; 20: 11-12; 20: 15-17; 27:25-28

Haliaeetus leucocephalus see Eagle, Bald

Hemitragus jemlahicus see Tahr

Historic Distributions Arizona, 7:61-63 California, 3:58-66; 4:72-75; 9:4048 Nevada, 7:l-11; 9:4048 New Mexico, l:3 1-33; 4:66-7 1; 5:7-8 Oregon, 24:63-70 Texas, 4:66-7 1 Utah, 11:64-72; 13:3342; 19:19-27

Historic Status California, 3:58-66; 9:l-5; 9:40-48 Nevada, 9:40-48 New Mexico, 4:66-71; 25:52-54 Texas, 4:66-7 1

History Arizona, 26: 108-1 10

Oregon, 5:56-67 petroglyphs, 12:4049 rock art, 12:40-49 Texas, 26: 102-104 Utah, 27:31-33

Home Range barbary sheep, 22:26-3 1 discussion, 5:99-102 ewe, 15:82-89; 21:25-28; 22:21-22; 23:71-77; 26:65-76; 27:2-3; 27:

4-6; 27: 12-16; 28:l-8; 28:32-36 fidelity, 14:5 1-53 influenced by water, 15:82-89 post release, 27: 12-16 ram, 21:25-28; 22:21-22; 23:71-77; 27:2-3; 27:4-6; 27:12-16; 28:

3 2-3 6 seasonal, 15232-89; 21:25-28; 23:20-24; 26:65-76; 26:104-106; 27:

12-16 theoretical, 5:99-102

Horn Size Boon and Crockett point scores, 11:99-112 compared to age, 11:99-112 genetics, 2: 17-20 harvested vs. pick-up skulls, 1 1:99-112 influence of hunting, 2: 17-20 measurements, 2:5-6; 2:6-12; 2: 13-1 6 ram

captive, 1 1:73-76 harvested, 1 1:99-112; 15: 1-6

Hunting aboriginal, 12:40-49 barbary sheep, 2:13-16; 7:175-177 bid tag, Utah, 25:42-44 discussion, 1:77-87; 5:116; 6:124-125; 7:17-18; 11:8-12

economics, l3:98-102; 299-12 history

Arizona, 2:6-12; 26:108-110 Nevada, 2: 1-5

hunter indoctrination, 5:6-7 illegal, 5:90-94 influence on horn size, 2: 17-20 legislation, 5:90-94 management, 3:2429; l4:54-62

Arizona, 3:2429 Nevada, 992-83

Mexico, 5230-83 mule deer, 10:36-46 program overview, Arizona, 1 1 :86-93 regulations

Arizona, 2:6-12; 7:169-174; 1196-93 effects of trophy class only regulations, 1 1:99-112 Nevada, 9232-83; 1 1: 1-5

results Arizona, 2:6-12; 4231-84; 5:84-86; 6:114-116; 7:169-174; 1136-

93; 12:5-6; 14:179-188; 15:l-6; 23:94-95; 24:76-77; 25:44- 46; 26~108-110; 27:39-41

Baja California, 20:23-24 Colorado, 20:5-10 Nevada, 2:l-5; 3:20-23a; 4:76-80; 537-89; 6:119-123; 7:12-16;

8:127-132; 9:84-86; 11:l-5; 12:7-11; 13:71-75; 14:54-62; 15: 12-17; 16:66-78; 17:l-14; 18:31-37; 21:5; 22:2-4; 23:107- 108; 24:71-74; 25:50-52; 26:113-114; 27:29-30

New Mexico, 2: 13-16; 13:76-79; 15:l-6 Utah, 12:1-4; 13:l-5; 14:171-176; 22:6-9; 23:89-91; 24:50-51;

25:42-44; 27:41-43 trophy class vs. 3h curl, 1 1:99-112

Idaho expenditures for hunting, 13:98-102 reintroduction, 19:33-35

Impacts climatic, 4: 12-1 4 discussion, 3:76 feral burros, 3:9-10; 4:85-87; 20:54-55; 21:23-25; 27:17-25

Arizona, 4:35-37; 14:179-188; 18:40-45; 24:52-56; 25:l-5 Baja California, 14: 177-178 California, 3:69-75; 9:l-5; 14:l-8; 14:9-13; 14:127-146; 15:38-

45; 16:112-116; 17:53-58; 18:4045; 19:51-53; 21:30-32; 23: 57-61; 26:50-55

human, 4:38-40 Nevada, 7: 1-1 1 Sonora, 9: 15-1 8 Utah, 13:33-42; 22:6-9; 2339-91; 27:31-33

habitat, 9: 15-1 8; 10: 13-20 livestock, 13:33-42 off road vehicles, 17.8 1-88 recreation, general, 10: 13-20

Injury human caused, 2:47-50 natural, 2:47-50

Interactions with Humans at water, 18: 18-24 captive lamb, 8: 145-1 52

Iranian Sheep genetics, 20: 13-14

J

Jack Rabbit antelope, water metabolism, 7:26-39 black-tailed, water metabolism, 7:26-39

28 30-YEAR INDEX e Kovach

K

Kangaroo Rat Memam's, water metabolism, 796-39

Legislation Endangered Species Act, 18:48-49 Engle Act, 1024-29 feral burro, 3:ll-13; 16:9-13; 17:lOl-102 international transport of trophies, 5:90-94 Sikes Act, 10:24-29 Wild Horse and Burro Act, 16%-13

Lepus alleni see Jack Rabbit, Antelope

Lepus californicus see Jack Rabbit, Black-tailed

Life Table mortality based, 1 1 : 142-1 70 survival based, 1 1 : 142-1 70 theoretical, 5:22-26

Limiting Factors New Mexico, 16:36-46 spatial, l3:lO8-113 stress, 20:30-3 1 Utah, 15:74-77

Livestock cattle

food habits, 3033-13; 30: 14-19 forage, 28: 18-22; 30:8-13; 30:14-19 habitat, 20: 15-17; 28: 18-22; 30%-13 water, 20:42-45

competition, 16:105-111; 23:37-39; 27:31-33

m blghorn habitat, 23:37-39 in Nevada, 7: 1-1 1 interactions with, 6:57-64 management, 2236-38

Lycaon pictus see Dog, Wild

Management Arizona, 3:24-29; 7:114-119; 11:13-15; 13:64-67; 14:179-188; 15:

1-6; 23:94-95; 26:108-110; 28:30-31 Baja California, 14: 177-178; 20:12 Bureau of Land Management, 426-27; 6:41-42; 1 l:l3-15; 13: 14-

21; 19:4-6 feral burro, 12:59-62; 17: 103-105

California, 359-75; 7:72-75; 7:126-132; 8:153-163; 9:49-52; 9:53- 54; 11:59-63; 11:77-79; 12:50-53; 12:59-62; 13:68-70; 14:9- 13; 15:18-23; 17:2242; 20:4; 21:6-7

concepts, 4:47-48 Department of Army, 10:24-29 discussion, 6: 13-20; 6:2 1-22 disease, 24:2 1-28 exotics, 7:42-50; 9:19-26; 1259-62 Fish and Wildlife Service, l:3 1-33; 10:21-23; 28:30-31

mule deer, 10:36-46 Forest Service, 7:126-132; 8:133-135; 9 :53-5 10:47-52; 10:71-77;

14:9-13 future, 20:49 general, 6: 13-20 guidelines, 9: 19-26; 24: 1-7 habitat, 3:69-75; 6:41-42; 7:133-134; 8:133-135; 9:53-54; 10:53-

55; 12:50-53; 13:14-21; 14:9-13; 14:99-106; 15:18-23; 17:43- 46; 20:4; 22:36-38

hunt, 324-29; 9:82-83; 11:99-112; 14:54-62

effect of trophy class only hunts, 11:99-112 implications from genetic research, 18:50-52 land, 5: 103-107 law enforcement

Arizona, 3:33-36 Baja California, 14: 177-1 78 California, 3:37-40

Mexico, 4: 101-103; 4: 104-106; 5:5 1-52; 5330-83; 737-89; 8:xv- xviii

multiple use, 4:45-46; 10:7 1-77 National Park Service, 1: 16-19; 120-21; 10:30-35; 1 1:59-63; 11:

77-79; 1250-53; 13:64-67; 15:90-93 feral burro, 17:98-100; 20:54-55; 21:7-8 water source, 1250-53

needs, 8:19-27; 9: 15-18; 9:49-52 Nevada, 9:ll-14; 14:54-62; 23:66-68 New Mexico, l:3 1-33; 10:36-46; 15: 1-6; 20:49 on Indian reservations, 7:114-119 public support, 4:28-34 recommendations

Arizona, 4:41-44; 13:55-63 Oregon, 8: 133-1 35 plaement of artificial water sources, 13:55-63

reduction of human impacts, 17:53-58 refuge, 10:21-23 research efforts, 19: 15-1 8 Sonora, 9: 15-1 8 Utah, 10:53-55; 226-9; 24:ll-12; 27:41-43 Wynne-Edwards theory, 7:64-71

Measurements age-weight relationships

ewe, 26:38-42 ram, 26:38-42

barbary sheep, 2: 13-1 6 body, from harvested rams, 2:l-5; 213-16; 23:40-46- captive

lamb, 8:69-76 ram, 1 1:73-76

general, from harvested rams, 3:24-29 horn, from harvested rams, 2:6-12; 2:l 3-16: 12:5-6 kidney, 11:94-98 skull, 20:27-29 weight

ewe, 26:38-42 hunter killed rams, 13:76-79 ram, 26:38-42

Memorial Arellano, Luis Macias, 7:iv Bicket, James C., 30: 1 Carpenter, Lewis E., 28:xi Graf, William "Bill," 20:3 Hansen, Charles G., 18:2-3 Kennedy, Cecil A,, 15:viii Landells, Don, 30: 1 Morgan, Newell B. (Bun), 14:viii "Old Joe," 9:iv Reed, John, 1 1:iv Seegmiller, Rick F., 27:xi "Spots," 21:2

Mexico capture results, 16:97-10 1 distribution, 3:77-79 hunting, 5:80-83 management, 4: 101-103; 4:104-106; 5:5 1-52; 5:80-83; 8:xv-xviii

discussion, 7:90-9 1 wildlife, 7:87-89

status, 3:77-79; 4:101-103; 4:104-106; 5:51-52 translocation, 19:28-32 see also Baja California, Sonora


Mice deer, water metabolism, 7:26-39 grasshopper, water metabolism, 726-39

Mineral Lick sodium content, 23:92-94 travel distance to, 6:57-64 use, 23:92-94

as influenced by human presence, 2650-55 Modeling

habitat utilization, 14:66-93 life table, theoretical, 5:22-26 population

dynamics, 26:97-99; 28:26-29 general, 24:36-44; 25:69

Morphology foot, 9:49-52 horn, 11:99-112; 14:14-22

growth, 11:99-112 kidney, 11:94-98; 1524-37 skull, 9:70-74; 10:98-109 tongue color, 14: 14-22

Mortality derived from skulls, 7: 145-148 habitats found in, 7: 145-148; 8:43-67 herd, 4:62-65; 23:92-94; 26:113-114

captive, 16:79-83; 26:32-33 juvenile, 13:114-129 lamb, 4:60-61; 21:ll-12; 26:65-76; 26:76-81 mass, 9:55 ram, 5:22-26; 17: 1-14 sources, 14:179-188; 15:63-73; 17:81-88; 20:51-52 unusual, 9:55; 26:44-46

Mountain Lion on o 7-10

status in California, 8: 153-1 63 Movements

average, 26: 107-108 between water sources, 8:103-112 comdors, 27:4-6; 28:32-36 daily, 267-72; 6:57-64; 9:27-34; 15:82-89; 20:42-45; 28:9-11 ewe, 1532-89; 2221-22; 23:71-77; 26:65-76; 27:12-16; 28:9-11 feral burro, 19:45 intermountain, 2:6-12; 8:ll-17; 8:103-112; 8:117-121; 27:l-2; 28:

3 2-3 6 timing of, 8: 1 1-1 7

nocturnal, 8: 1 1-1 7; 13:55-63 post release, 5:56-67; 2239-42; 24: 12-14; 24:57-6 1; 24:78-83; 25:

29-30; 26:8-11; 26:lll-112; 27:12-16; 27:34-36; 2920-23 ram, 2221-22; 23:7 1-77; 27: 12-16 response to water availability, 12: 12-1 7 seasonal, 6:43-51; 6:57-64; 8:117-121; 9:6-10; 9:27-34; 1212-17;

13:55-63; 2O:ll-12; 20: 15-17; 23:20-24; 26: 104-106; 27:4-6; 27:12-16

Mule Deer California, 7: 126-1 32; 9: 1-5; 10:62-64 chemical immobilization, 4:97-100 competition, 10:36-46

forage, 14: 127-146 habitat, 20: 15-1 7

food habits, 10:62-64; 10:65-70; 16:36-46; 2210-16 overlap with bighorn, 10:65-70 preferred forage, 1 O:65-70

habitat selection, 9: 1-5 hunting, 10:36-46 management in New Mexico, 1:31-33; 10:36-46 Nevada, 7:l-11; 1055-70 New Mexico, 10:36-46 strontium 90 levels, 9:62-67

N Neotoma spp.

see Wood Rat Nevada

activity patterns, 267-72 census results, 5:30-3 1; 19: 15-18 competition from livestock, 14:63-65; 23:37-39 demographics, 6:73-82; 9:27-34; 14:66-93; 15:12-17; 16:66-78; 17:

1-14; 17:59-72; 19:15-18; 20:ll; 21:5; 222-4; 23:107-108; 24: 7 1-74; 25:50-52; 26: 1 13-1 14; 27:29-30

density, 7:61-63 diseases, 1:38-42; 12:76-77; 14: 107-108; 17:47-52 distribution, 5:9-12; 14:66-93; 15: 12-17; 16:66-78 economic value of hunting, 29%-12 ectoparasites, 6:69-7 1; 12:76-77; 14: 107-108 endoparasites, 1:38-42; 6:69-71; 8:5-9; 17:47-52 food habits, 6:73-82; 8:43-67; 8535-93; 8:95-102; 8:137-143; 927-

34; 10:65-70; 19:61-68; 20:40-41; 21:32-61 general ecology, 927-34 general techniques, 1 :35-37 genetics, 18:38-39 group fidelity, 21:25-28 habitat

comparison, 23:37-39 description, 8:43-67 management, 14:99-106; 17:43-46 selection, 8:43-67 use, 9:ll-14; 14:66-93

historic distribution, 7: 1-1 1; 9:40-48 status, 9:40-48

home range, 2125-28; 27:2-3 hunting, 21-5; 320-23a; 4:76-80; 5237-89; 6:119-123; 7:12-16; 8:

127-132; 9:82-83; 11:l-5; 11:6-7; 11:99-112; 12:7-11; 13:71- 75; 14:5462; 15: 12-17; 16:66-78; 17:l-14; 18:31-37; 21:5; 22: 2-4; 23: 107-108; 24:71-74; 25:50-52; 26:113-114; 2729-30

management, 9:82-83 regulations, 932-83; 9:84-89; 1 1: 1-5

impacts, 7: 1-1 1 llfe table, 522-26 livestock, 7: 1-1 1 management, 9:ll-14; 14:54-62; 23:66-68

hunt, 932-83; 11:99-112 measurements, body from harvested rams, 2: 1-5 morphology

horn, 11:99-112 skull, 9:70-74

mortality, 7: 145-148; 8:43-67 herd, 26: 1 13-1 14 lamb, 4:60-6 1 pneumonia, 20:5 1-52 ram, 522-26; 17:l-14

movements, 267-72; 9:6-10; 9:27-34; 24:57-61 mule deer, 7:l-11; 10:65-70 pathology, 9:75-8 1; 17:47-52 plant communities, 8:43-67; 9:56-6 1 population estimate, 17: 123-1 36 predation, bald eagle, 5:9-12 propagation efforts, 1 7: 15-1 8 radionuclide content, 9:62-67; 19:61-68 reintroduction, 13:43-47; 14:43-50; 17: 15-1 8; 1 9:39-40; 19:4 1; 22:

2-4; 23:107-108; 24:57-61; 24:63-70; 24:71-74; 25:55-57; 25: 60-62; 27:29-30

guidelines, 25:7-9 history, 25:7-9

reproduction, 6:73-82 research, 1:35-37; 19:15-18 state status, 1:12-15; 6:119-123; 7:12-16; 8:127-132; 9:84-86; 11:

1-5; 15:12-17; 16:66-78; 17:l-14; 18:31-37; 20:ll; 21:5; 222-


4; 23:107-108; 24:71-74; 25:50-52; 26:113-114; 27:29-30; 28: 46-47; 29:38-39

state-wide population trend, 20: 1 1; 2 1:5 status, 7: 1-1 1; 9:4048

historic, 9:40-48 survival, lamb, 4:60-6 1 taxonomy, 5:9-12 time-activity budgets, 28: 14-17 water

consumption rate, 6:73-82; 8:77-83 use, 8:69-76; 22:23-26 wildlife use of, 17:59-72

New Mexico barbary sheep

distribution, 1:34 hunting, 2:13-16; 7: 175-177 measurements from harvested rams, 2: 13-1 6 parasites, 2: 13-16

competition, mule deer, 10:3646 demographics, 13:114-129; 23:92-94 diseases, 2: 13-16

control, 25:66-68; 27:6-8 distribution, 1:34; 13:76-79 ectoparasites, 2: 13-16; 27:6-8 endoparasites, 2: 13-16 feral burro, 2054-55 food habits, 2: 13-1 6; 28: 1-8 habitat

characteristics, 16:36-46; 21:29-30; 23:62-63 description, 23:62-63 utilization, 13: 114-129; 28:l-8

historic distribution, 1:31-33; 4:66-71; 5:7-8 range evaluation, 23232-87 tatus, 4:66-71; 25:52-5

home range, 28: 1-8 hunting, 2:13-16; 13:76-79; 15:l-6

mule deer, 10:36-46 limiting factors, 16:36-46 management, 15: 1-6

future, 20:49 mule deer, 1:31-33; 10:36-46 refuge, 1:31-33

measurements from harvested rams, 2: 13-16 mineral lick, 23:92-94 mortality, 26: 107-108

herd, 4:62-65; 23:92-94 juvenile, 13:114-129

movements, 24:12-14; 26:8-11; 26:107-108 population estimate, 17: 123-1 36 predation, mountain lion, 25:64-65; 26:107-108 propagation efforts, 13:76-79; 19:43; 20:4 reintroduction, 4:66-7 1; 21:3; 2332-87; 24: 12-14; 25:6465; 26%-

11 reproduction, 13: 1 14-1 29 state status, 1:34; 5:7-8; 6: 126-128; 7: 175-1 77; 8:123-125; l3:76-

79; 16:36-46; 20:4; 23:82-87; 24:75; 25:66-68 status, 21:29-30 time-activity budgets, 13: 1 14-1 29 water developments, 23:92-94

Nutrition analysis, 13:6-13 discussion, 1:64-67

0

Odocoileus hemionus see Mule Deer

Onager water metabolism, 7:26-39

Onychomys spp. see Mice, Grasshopper

Oregon general ecology, 24:63-70 habitat carrying capacity, 8: 133-1 35 historic distribution, 24:63-70 history, 556-67 management, 8: 133-1 35 movements, 5:56-67 reintroduction, 5:56-67

Oryx water metabolism, 7:26-39

o w SPP. see Oryx

Ovis aries see Domestic Sheep

Ovis canadensis see Rocky Mountain Bighorn

Ovis dalli see Dall Sheep see Stone's Sheep

Ovis linrraeus see Iranian Sheep

Parasites discussion, 6:72 see Ectoparasites see Endoparasites

Pathology general, 14:28-41; 15:78-81 l u g , 14:28-41; 17:47-52 necrosis

dental, 9:75-81; 10236-97 skull, 9

necropsy procedures, 9368-69b osteolysis of tooth arcade, 10:86-97

Peromyscus spp. see Mice, Deer

Physiology body temperature, lamb, 8: 145-1 52 baseline values, 24:46-49 food intake rates, 6:73-82 horn development

lamb, 8:145-152 ram, 11:73-76

mean serologic values, 26:21-25 metabolic water balance, 14: 189-197 mineral deficiency, l3:27-32 molt pattern, 8:69-76 radiation effects, 3: 15-1 9 skull growth rates, 10:98-109 stress, 2:5 1-56; 25: 15-16

from capture, 26:2 1-25 tooth eruption, 8:145-152; 11:73-76 trace mineral deficiency, 251-56 urine values, 11:94-98 water intake rates, 6:73-82; 7: 156-166; 7: 185-192 water metabolism

addax, 7:26-39 antelope jack rabbit, 7:26-39 blackbuck, 7:26-39 black-tailed jack rabbit, 7:26-39 camel, 7:26-39 deer mice, 7:26-39 discussion, 7:40-4 1 domestic sheep, 7:26-39 gazelle, 7:26-39 grasshopper mice, 7:26-39


Merriam's kangaroo rat, 7:26-39 Mohave ground squirrel, 7:26-39 Nelson's antelope squirrel, 7:26-39 Norway rat, 7:26-39 onager, 7:26-39 OUX, 7126-39 prairie dog, 7:26-39 round-tailed ground squirrel, 7:26-39 white-tailed antelope squirrel, 7:26-39 wild dog, 7:26-39 wood rat, 7:26-39

water requirements, 7: 156-1 66 Poem

ode to the bighorn, 19: 11 the king of desert beast, 16:v

Population Estimates Arizona, 17:123-136; 23:96-106 California, 17: 123-136 discussion, 5: 108-109 feral burro, 22:45-46 Nevada, 17: 123-1 36 New Mexico, 17: 123-136 Sonora, 20:25-26 Utah, 17: 123-1 36 visitor reports vs. aerial survey, 23:96-106

Population Regulation contributors, stress, 15:46-52 discussion, 7:7 1 Wynne-Edwards theory, 7:64-7 1

Prairie Dog water metabolism, 7:26-39

Predation bobcat, 5:38-41

eagle bald, 5:9-12 golden, 5:47-50

mountain lion, 5:38-41; 5:42-46a; 19:51-53; 25:64-65; 26:107-108 Pronghorn

desert distribution, 12:63-69 general ecology, 12:63-69 status, 12:63-69

management and status in California, 8: 153-1 63 Propagation Efforts

Arizona, 17: 1 17-122 California, 8:l-3; 2050; 219; 225; 23:88-89; 26:32-33 diet, 8: 1-3 disease

prevention, 16:79-83 problems, 17:73-80; 2050

facilities, 8: 1-3 history, 8: 1-3 husbandry, l7:73-80 lamb survival, 26:26-3 1 mortality, 16:79-83 Nevada, 17: 15-1 8 New Mexico, 13:76-79; 19:43; 20:4 reproduction, 1153-58; 17:73-80; 17: 117-122 sheep

California, 17:73-80 Dall, 17:73-80 Stone's, 17:73-80 Rocky Mountain, 17:73-80

Texas, 553-55; 6:129-130; 7:149-150; 8:113-116 1059-61; 1153- 58; 13:80-85; 15:97-100; 16:79-83; 19:38; 20:4

Utah, 20:52-54; 22:39-42

Radiation cesium 137, 637-92; 753-57 hazard, 6237-92 iodine 13 1, 7:53-57 isotopes, 5:95-98 mule deer, 9:62-67 potassium 40, 753-57 potentials from different sources, 6:87-92 radionuclide content, 9:62-67; 19:6 1-68 strontium 90,3: 15-19; 4:23-25; 5:95-98; 6:87-92; 753-57; 9:62-67;

15:lOl-108 uptake

of fallout particles, 753-57 rates, 5:95-98

zinc 65, 753-57 Rat

Norway, water metabolism, 7:26-39 Rattus norvegicus

see Rat, Norway Reintroduction

Arizona, 17: 11 7-1 22; l9:42; 24:76-77; 25:29-30; 2k44-46; 25:46- 49; 27:12-16; 27:39-41

history, 17:117-122; 26:108-110 California, 16:84-87; 17:19-21; 1k46-47; 19:36-37; 2050; 21%; 22:

5; 23:88-89; 24:62; 24:78-83; 26:32-33; 26:116-118; 27:44-45; 28155-56

Colorado, 25:38-42; 27:34-36 considerations, 7: 122-1 25 guidelines, 25:7-9 Idaho, 19:33-35 Mexico, 19:28-32 Nevada, 13:43-47; 14:43-50; 17: 15-1 8; l9:39-40; 19:41; 22:2-4; 23:

107-108; 24:57-61; 24:63-70; 24:71-74; 25:55-57; 25:60-62; 27:29-30

history, 25:7-9 New Mexico, 4:66-71; 21:3; 2332-87; 24:12-14; 25:64-65; 26:8-11 Oregon, 556-67 potential, 17: 123-136 reasons for success, 19:33-35 review of past efforts, 25:25-28 suggested procedures, 3:42-46; 17: 137-1 54; 25:7-9; 25:25-28; 26: 1-

7; 27:12-16 techniques, 3:47-49; 17: 137-1 54; 19: 19-27; 22:39-42; 24: 12-14; 24:

57-61; 25:29-30; 25:55-57; 25:60-62; 26:lll-112 Texas, 2:43-46; 1153-58; 19:38 Utah, 19:19-27; 2052-54; 21:9-11; 22:6-9; 22:39-42; 23:81; 2450-

51; 24:84-85; 24:86; 27:31-33; 27:41-43 Reproduction

captive, 1 153-58 compared with barbary sheep, 1 1: 16-26 cycle

ewe, 7:92-111 ram, 7:92-111

discussion, 1 :56-60; 7: 1 12-1 13 environmental factors influencing, 7:92-111 gestation of captive bighorn, 6:73-82 hybrids, 12: 18-27 lambing dates, 6:73-82 production calculation, 6:73-82 spermatogenesis, related to age, 13:6-13 sterility, 7:92-111

Research application of results, 1 190-85 history of in the National Park Service, 1396-90 needs, 6:23-28; 11230-85

feral burros, 4:9 1-96 genetics, 1850-52


overview Arizona, 25:44-46; 26: 108-1 10; 27:39-41 California, 27:44-45 Nevada, 1:35-37; 19:15-18 Utah, 10:56-58; 25:42-44; 27:3 1-33

questions needing answers, 1270-75 valid observations, 629-40

Review Desert Bighorn Council Transactions, 6: 13-20 general ecology, 6: 10-1 2 techniques, 6: 1-7

Rocky Mountain Bighorn food habits, 13:86-90 propagation, 17:73-80

Sheep see Barbary Sheep see Dall Sheep see Domestic Sheep see Iranian Sheep see Rocky Mountain Bighorn see Stone's Sheep

Sonora distribution, 20:25-26 habitat description, 9: 15-1 8 impacts from humans, 9: 15-1 8 management needs, 9: 15-1 8 population estimate, 2025-26 state status, 20:25-26 status, 2025-26; 28:41-43

Sperrnophilus mohavensis see Ground Squirrel, Mohave

Spermophilus tereticaudus see Ground Squirrel, Round-taile

State Status Arizona, 1:5-7; 6:114-116; 7:169-174; 14:179-188; 16:105-111; 23:

94-95; 24:76-77; 25:44-46; 26:108-110; 27:39-41; 28:51-53; 29:34-36; 3090-21

California, 13-11; 3:30-32; 6:117-118; 8:153-163; 16:56-65; 21:6- 7; 27:44--45; 28:48

Colorado, 20:5-10; 3022 Nevada, 1:12-15; 6:119-123; 7:12-16; 8:127-132; 934-86; 11:l-5;

15:12-17; 16:66-78; 17:l-14; 18:31-37; 20:ll; 21:5; 222-4; 23: 107-108; 24:71-74; 25:50-52; 26:113-114; 2729-30; 28:46-47; 29:38-39

New Mexico, 1:3-4; 5:7-8; 6: 126-128; 7: 175-177; 8: 123-125; 13: 76-79; 16:36-46; 20:4; 23:82-87; 24:75; 25:66-68

Sonora, 20:25-26 Texas, 5:53-55; 6:129-130; 7:149-150; 8:113-116 10:59-61; 1330-

85; 15:97-100; 20:4; 21:4; 23:82; 24:77; 25:63; 26:102-104; 27: 38; 28:54; 29:37

Utah, 13:l-5; 14:171-176; 226-9; 23:89-91; 24:50-51; 24:84-85; 25:42-44; 27:31-33; 27:41-43; 28:49-50; 29:40-41

Status Arizona, 1: 16-19; 16:30-35; 16:36-46 Baja California, 14: 177-1 78; 20:18-21 barbary sheep, 28:37-38 California, 1:22-25; 3:58-66; 9:40-48; 14:127-146; 28:44-45 desert pronghorn, 12:63-69 exotics, 9: 19-26 feral burro, 1 : 16-1 9 historic, 3:58-66 Mexico, 3:77-79; 4: 101-1 03; 4: 104-1 06; 5:5 1-52 National Park Service projects, 15:90-93 Nevada, 7: 1-1 1; 9:40-48 New Mexico, 2 1:29-30 Sonora, 2k41-43 see also individual state listings

Stone's Sheep behavior, 14:5 1-53 hemoglobin pattern, 17: 1 10-1 16 home range fidelity, 145 1-53 propagation efforts, 17:73-80

Stress from capture, 2621-25 limiting factor, 20:30-3 1 over-crowding induced, 15:46-52 physiology, 2:5 1-56; 25: 15-16

Survival lamb, 4:60-6 1

captive, 26:26-3 1 discussion, 1:6 1-63

Sus scrofa see Wild Pig

T

Tahr food habits, 10:62-64

Taxonomy Baja California, 20:27-29 based upon reproductive isolation, 12: 18-27 based upon skull measurements, 1 1 : 1 14-140 hybrids, 12: 18-27 Nevada, 5:9-12 OWS spp., 5:17-21; ll:ll4-140; 1218-27; 23:2-19 proposed, 12: 18-27

Techniques activity sensor, 13:22-26 aging

by cementum annuli, 19:54-56 by tooth eruption, 19:57 lambs, 8:69-76; 2659

amputation of foreleg, 12:28-37 analysis, home range, 29: 15-1 9 blood collections, 24:33-35 Cap-Chur gun, 3:50-52 capture, 236-39; 3:42-46; 15:78-81; 17:137-154; 17:155-163

guidelines, 26: 1-7 using corral traps, 2 4 0 4 2 ; 4:58-59; 14:43-50; 1 5:78-8 1 using drop nets, 26: 11 5-1 16; 28:39-40 relative cost comparison, 2621-25 review, 6: 1-7

care of immobilized bighorn, 17: 155-1 63; 25:57-59 census

aircraft vs. boat, 8:37-42 by boat, k37-42 day and night, 7:185-192 discussion, 1:88-93; 5: 1 12 ground, 5:30-31; 7:135-138 helicopter, 13:48-54; 14:23-27 lamb, 5:31a-31d review, 6: 1-7 time-lapse camera vs. observers, 19:44 water source, 8: 103-1 12

condition assessment, 29:27-28 data types, movements, 7:72-83 disease control

capture myopathy, 22:31-36 chronic sinusitis, 26:21-25 scabies, 25:66-68; 27:6-8

embryo handling, 16: 14-20 inter-species transfer, 16: 14-20

ewe : lamb ratio calculation, 6:73-82 fencing, 15:53-62; 22:36-38

to exclude feral burros, 17: 106-109

fur dying, 7: 199-202 general, used in New Mexico, 1:35-37 habitat

classification, 10: 1 1 1-1 18 evaluation, 26:47-49

handling, 236-39; 17:155-163; 2557-59 hand rearing lambs, 17: 164-166 holding pen, 19:19-27; 22:39-42; 24:12-14; 25:29-30; 26:lll-112 home range analysis, 29: 15-1 9 horizontal well, 26:63-64 husbandry, 3:42-46; 17: 164-166 identification of legal skulls, 23:66-68 infection treatment, 1228-37 infra-red sensor recorder, 15:94-96 marking, 2:36-39; 4:49-53; 6:73-82; 18:53-60

color, 6:65-69; 7: 199-202; 8:103-112 review, 6: 1-7 skull, 23:66-68 temporary, 25:3 1-33

necropsy, 5:75-79; 9168-69b parasite collection, 5:75-79 photography, 3:80-86

calendar-clock recording, 15:94-96 data extrapolation from, 7: 120-1 2 1 time lapse, 7: 185-192; 1322-26; 16:3-8; 1759-72; 18:29-30; 20:

32-35 vs. observers, 19:44

population estimation mark-recapture, 22:45-46; 25:3 1-33 visitor reports vs. aerial survey, 23:96-106

pregnancy evaluation using progesterone levels, 30:2-4 using ultrasound, 30:2-4

production calculation, 6:73-82 radioactive tags, 4:49 radio telemetry, 4:49- reintroduction, 3:47-4

24:57-61; 2529-30; 25:55-57; 25:60-62; 26:lll-112 guidelines, 26: 1-7; 27:12-16

release direct, 24:57-61; 25:55-57; 25:60-62 small enclosure, 2239-42; 2599-30; 26:lll-112 large enclosure, 24: 12-14

remote tracking, 653-56 semen collection and storage, 17: 167-169 superovulation, 16: 14-20 treatment of massive infection, 12:28-37 use of volunteers, 16:88-9 1; 2656-58 vegetation sampling, 10: 1 1 1-1 18 water

developments, 2:21-27; 2:28-3 1; 2:32-35; 15:74-77; 16%-91; 18: 25-27; 26:63-64; 28:12-13; 29:13-14

level recorder, 7: 185-192 weather data, 7:72-83 see also Chemical Immobilization

Texas diseases, 10:59-6 1; 13:80-85; 16:79-83 endoparasites, 6: 129-1 30 food habits, 13:80-85 historic

distribution, 4:66-7 1 status, 4:66-7 1

history, 26: 102-104 mortality, 16:79-83 propagation efforts, 553-55; 6: 129-130; 7:149-150; 8:113-116; 10:

59-61; 11:53-58; 13:80-85; 15:97-100; 16:79-83; 19:38; 20:4 reintroduction efforts, 2:4346; 11:53-58; 19:38 reproduction, captive, 1153-58 state status, 5:53-55; 6:129-130; 7:149-150; 8:113-116; 10:59-61;


13:80-85; 15:97-100; 20:4; 21:4; 23:82; 24:77; 25:63; 26:102- 104; 27:38; 2854; 29:37

vegetation, 5:53-55 water, 8:ll3-116; 1059-61; 1153-58

Time-Activity Budgets at water sources, 4:54-57 in relation to temperature, 1355-63 nocturnal, 28:23-25 seasonal, 13:114-129; 28:14-17 summer, 23:33-36; 28:9-11; 305-7

Ursus americarrus see Black Bear

Utah aerial survey, 23:79-80 competition

cattle, 20: 15-1 7; 28: 18-22 livestock, 27:3 1-33 mule deer, 20: 15-1 7

demographics, 14:171-176; 226-9; 23:79-80; 23:89-91; 2450-5 1 disease, 13:33-42; 27: 11-12; 27:31-33 distribution, 1056-58; 1 1:64-72 ectoparasites, 13:6-13 endoparasites, 10:56-58 food habits, 13:6-13; 1397-32; 26:104-106; 27:25-28; 28:18-22 general ecology, 1056-58; 19:7-11 genetics, 18:38-39 habitat

loss, 13:33-42 management, 1053-55; 13:14-21 selection, 26: 104-106; 28: 18-22 utilization, 13:6-13; 20: 1 1-12; 20: 15-1 7; 27:25-28

historic distribution, 1 1:64-72; 13:33-42; 19: 19-27 history, 27:31-3 home range, 15: hunt results, 12: 1-4; 13: 1-5; 14: 171-176; 22:6-9; 23:89-91; 24:50-

5 1; 25:42-44; 27:41-43 hunter attitude, 12: 1-4 impacts, human, 13:33-42; 226-9; 23239-9 1; 27:3 1-33 limiting factors, 15:74-77 management, 10:53-55; 22:6-9; 24: 11-12; 27:41-43 movements, 12: 12-1 7; 15:82-89; 20:ll-12; 20: 15-17; 2239-42; 26:

104-106; 27:4-6; 28:9-11 population estimate, 17: 123-136 propagation efforts, 20:52-54; 22:39-42 reintroduction efforts, 19: 19-27; 20:52-54; 2 l:g-ll; 22:6-9; 2239-

42; 23:81; 24:50-51; 24:84-85; 24:86; 27:31-33; 27:41-43 reproduction, 13:6-13 research, 1056-58; 25:42-44; 27:31-33 state status, 13:l-5; 14: 171-1 76; 22:6-9; 2339-9 1; 24:50-5 1; 24:84-

85; 25:42-44; 27:31-33; 27:41-43; 28:49-50; 29:40-41 time-activity budgets, 28:9-11; 305-7 water developments, 14: 17 1-176; 15:74-77

Vegetation Baja California, 5:68-74 brood pen, within, 553-55 composition, grazed vs. ungrazed, 30:8-13 grazed vs. ungrazed, 10:47-52 impacts from feral burro, 27: 17-25 plant communities, 8:43-67; 9:56-61 responses to grazing, 10:47-52 sampling techniques, 10: 1 11-1 18 tamarisk, 19:12-14

Virus bluetongue, 16:79-83; 2050; 22:26-31; 26:65-76; 26:76-81; 27:ll-

12; 29:29-33


parainfluenza-3, 26:65-76; 26:76-81; 29:39-33 soremouth, 29:29-33

Visibility from helicopter, 18:53-60

W Water

behavior at, 5:27-29 competition, 3: 1-3 consumption, 8:77-83; 15232-89

by cattle, 20:4245 by tamarisk, 19: 12-14 daily, 4:54-57; 11:53-58; 13:80-85; 14:189-197 weekly, 6:73-82

distribution, 20:32-35 from forage, 14:189-197; 23:92-94 general wildlife use of, 17:59-72 group sizes at, 17:59-72 influence on habitat selection, 7: 193-1 98; 13:6-13 length of visit, 17:59-72 metabolic balance, 14: 189-1 97 monitoring at with time lapse photography, 16:3-8; 17:59-72 nocturnal use, 8:ll-17; 13:80-85 requirements

camel, 2:64-66 discussion, 1:5 1-55 general, 4:54-57

upsurge by feral burros, 435-87 use, 23:50-56

by time of day, k37-42; 8:69-76; 8:lO3-112; 8:113-116; 10:59- 61; 20:42-45

frequency, 10:59-6 1 influenced by feral burros, 26:87-96

variable use of different sources, 10:59-6 1; 1 1:53-58; 13:80-85; 22: 23-26

visitation rates, 5:27-29; 1 1 :53-58; 15:94-96; 1 8:53-60 Water Developments

Arizona, 1:26-30; 7:l5 1-155; 16:88-91; 18:25-27; 23:50-56; 28:12- 13

California, 9:49-52; 12:38-39; 13: 103-107; 14:147-148; 16:92-96; 20:4; 26:63-64

evaluation criteria, 29: 13-14 general, 1 :26-30 horizontal wells, 26:63-64 management policy, 9:49-52 New Mexico, 23:92-94 siting characteristics, 7: 15 1-1 55 spring rehabilitation, 12:38-39; 13: 103-107; 16:92-96 techniques, 2:2 1-27; 2:28-3 1; 2:32-35 use, 23:50-56 Utah, 14:171-176; 15:74-77

Wild Pig status in California, 8: 153-1 63; 10:62-64

Wood Rat water metabolism, 7:26-39

z Zebra

California, 10:62-64


AUTHORS

A

Albrechtsen, B. R., and J. B. Reese. Problem analysis of habitat management for desert bighorn sheep, 14:63-65

Aldous, M. C. Status of bighorn sheep on the Desert Game Range, 1: 3 5-3 7

. Trapping and tagging of bighorn sheep, 2:36-39 Allen, R. W. Diseases and parasites of barbary and bighorn sheep in

the southwest, 4: 17-22 . Methods of examining bighorn sheep for parasites, 5:75-79 . Parasitism in bighorn sheep on the Desert Game Range in

Nevada, 659-7 1 . Additional notes on parasites of bighorn sheep on the Desert

Game Range, Nevada, 8:5-9 . Present status of lungworm and tapeworm infections in desert

bighorn sheep, l5:7-ll Allison, M. N. Interrelationships between wild burros and bighorn, 3:

14 Allred, L. G., and W. G. Bradley. Necrosis and anomalies of the skull

in desert bighorn sheep, 9:75-8 1 , and - . Comparative study of necrosis associated with teeth

in desert bighorn sheep, 10:86-97 -. see Bradley and Allred, 10:78-85 -. see Bradley and Allred, 11:9498 Alvarez, T. Status of desert bighorns in Baja California, 20: 18-2 1 Amstrup, S. C. see Bates, Pederson, and Amstrup, 20:ll-12 Andaloro, L. see Ramey, Andaloro, and White, 24:78-83 Anonymous. Summaries of bighorn hunt summaries, 5: 1 16 -. Desert Bighorn Council Award 1960, 6:x -. Desert Bighorn Council 1963 Award, 7:xiv -. "Old Joe," 9:iv -. Memorial, John Reed, 1l:iv

. - C e c i l A. Kennedy, 15:viii -. A remembrance for our friend Chuck, 18:2-3 -. Award of Excellence, 19:3 -. In memorium, 20:3 -. "Spots," 21:2 -. In memorium Lewis E. Carpenter, 28:xi -. In memory of James C. Bicket and Don Landells, 30: 1 Araujo M., E. Development of the program for protection of bighorn

sheep in Baja California, 20:12 Arellano, L. M. Bighorn management in Mexico (translation), 5:5 1-52

B

Bagley, C. V., and T. D. Bunch. Procedures for collecting and processing blood in wild sheep, 24:33-35

Baker, D. P. see Bradley and Baker, 11:142-170 Baker, J. K. The Stubbe Spring guzzler: An artificial method to conserve

water, bighorn sheep and naturalness in Joshua Tree National Mon- ument, 10: 103-107

Baker, L. R., and W. G. Bradley. Skull measurements of desert bighorn sheep from the Desert Game Range, 9:70-74

-, and - . Growth of the skull in desert bighorn sheep, 10: 98-109

-. see Bradley and Baker, 1 1: 1 14140 Ball, W. S. Wild burro legislative problems in California, 3: 11-13 Banko, W. E. Welcome address, 1:2 -. The Wynne-Edwards Theory applied to desert bighorn sheep,

7:6471 -, and L. Sumner. A proposal for a coordinated life history and

management study, 6:23-28 Barclay, G. E. Summary of discussions on talks, 4: 107 Barngrover, L. W. Results of Nevada's 1965 and 1966-1967 bighorn

sheep seasons, 1 1: 1-5 -. Nevada bighorn sheep hunting progress report, 12:7-11 -. Nevada desert bighorn hunt results, 1968-69, 13:71-75 Barrett, R. H. Seasonal food habits of the bighorn at the Desert Game

Range, Nevada, 835-93

-. A history of the bighorn in California and Nevada, 9:40-48 . Some comparisons between the barbary sheep and the desert

bighorn, 11: 16-26 Bates, J. W. 1980 bighorn sheep status report, 25:4244

. Status report Utah's desert bighorn, 27:31-33 -, J. C. Pederson, and S. C. Amstrup. Bighorn sheep range, pop-

ulation trend and movement, 20:ll-12 -. see Bunch et al., 24:46-49 -. see Dalton, Roberson, and Bates, 22:3 1-36

. see Dalton, Winegardner, and Bates, 22:6-9

. see Glaze, Bunch, and Bates, 26: 18-2 1 -. see Guymon and Bates, 27:41-43

. see Guymon and Bates, 28:49-50

. see Jense, Bates, and Roberson, 2339-91 -. see Roberson and Bates, 24:50-5 1

. see Winegardner, Dalton, and Bates, 20: 18-20 -. see Wylie and Bates, 23:79-80 Bates, J. W., Jr., and G. W. Workman. Desert bighorn sheep habitat

utilization in Canyonlands National Park, 27:25-28 Bavin, B. Post-release study of desert bighorn sheep in the Big Hatchet

Mountains, New Mexico, 24: 12-14 Baxter, G. see Reese and Baxter, 17:43-46 Bendt, R. H. Status of bighorn sheep in Grand Canyon National Park

and Monument, 1 : 16-1 9 Bernhardt, D. E. see Brown et al., 1951-68 Bicknell, E. J. see Ohmart et al., 22:45-46 Blaisdell, J. A. New developments in the use of tranquilizers, 4:97-100

. Bighorn<ougar relationships, 5:42-46a -. The National Park Service concept of wildlife management and

the probable effects on desert bighorn, 10:30-35 . Progress report on selected National Park Service bighorn proj-

ects, 15:90-93 -. Progress report-Lava Beds bighorn re-establishment, 1 6 9 4

87 -. Ovis-on-the-rocks . . . with a little help from my friends, 17:

19-2 1 -. Panel introduction, 17:89 -. Lava Beds California bighorn-was 1973 typical?, 18:4647 -. Progress report: The Lava Beds reestablishment program, 19:

36-37 . The Lava Beds bighorn-so who worries?, 20:50

-. 1976-good year at Lava Beds, 21:8 Lava Beds bighorn project-nearing success, 225

-. Lava Beds wrap-up, what did we learn?, 26:32-33 -. see Wilson et al., 24:l-7 Bleich, V. C. An illustrated guide to aging the lambs of mountain sheep

(Ovis carzadensis ssp.), 26:59-62 -. Horizontal wells for mountain sheep: Desert bighorn "get the

shaft," 2653-64 -, L. J. Coombes, and G. W. Sudmeier. Volunteer participation

in California wildlife habitat improvement projects, 26:56-58 Blong, B. Status of bighorn in the Santa Rosa Mountains, 9: 1-5 -. Progress report from California, 20:4 Bos, G. The desert bighorn, 8: 165-1 8 1 Bradley, W. G. Water metabolism in desert mammals with special

reference to the desert bighorn sheep, 7:26-39 -. The vegetation ofthe Desert Game Range with special reference

to the desert bighorn, 8:43-67 -. A study of the blackbrush community on the Desert Game

Range: 1, 9:56-6 1 -. Boone and Crockett scores from the Desert Game Range and

their significance to management, 1 1 :99-112 -. Evaluation of recent taxonomic studies of wild sheep of the

world, 12: 18-27 -, and L. G. Allred. A comparative study of dental anomalies in

desert bighorn sheep, 10:78-85 -, and - . A study of the kidney of Nelson bighorn sheep: A

preliminary report, 1 1:9498


, and D. P. Baker. Life tables for Nelson bighorn sheep on the Desert Game Range, 1 1 : 142-1 70 , and L. R. Baker. Range of variation in Nelson bighorn sheep

from the Desert Game Range and its taxonomic significance, 11: 114-140

, and M. K. Yousef. Hematology of desert bighorn sheep: A preliminary report, 14: 109-1 15

. see Allred and Bradley, 9:75-8 1

. see Allred and Bradley, 10:86-97

. see Baker and Bradley, 9:70-74

. see Baker and Bradley, 10:98-109

. see Ferrier and Bradley, 1456-93 Brady, W. W. see Dodd and Brady, 309-13 Brechbill, R. 1962 progress and hunt report-Nevada, 7: 12-1 6

. 1964-1965 progress and hunt report-Nevada, 9:84-86 Brigham, W. R. Report of the feral burro committee, 1852-63

. see Wilson et al., 24:l-7 Broadbent, R. V. Nevada's 1968 transplant disappointment, 13:43-47 Brown, D. E. The status of desert bighorn sheep on the Papago Indian

Reservation, 16:30-35 Brown, K. W., R. M. Lee, and R. P. McQuivey. Observations on the

food habits of desert bighorn lambs, 20:40-4 1 , D. D. Smith, and R. P. McQuivey. Food habits of desert bighorn

sheep in Nevada, 1956-1976, 21:32-61 , et al. Food habits and radionuclide tissue concentrations of

Nevada desert bighorn, 1972-1973, 1951-68 Brown, M. see Krausman et al., 29:24-26 Browning, B. Preliminary report of the food habits of the wild burro in

the Death Valley National Monument, 4238-96 Bunch, T. D. Skeletal lesions associated with desert bighorn chronic

sinusitis, 23:27-32 . A survey of chronic sinusitis in the bighorn of California, 24:

14-18 , J. W. Bates, P. M. Webb, and E. L. Smith. Baseline physiologic

values in the desert bighorn (Ovis cmadensrs inexicana and 0 . c. nelson^, 24:46-49

, W. C. Foote, and J. J. Spillett. Inter-species embryo transfer in the propagation of rare species of wild sheep: Methods, application, current limitations and possible role in wildlife propagation, 16: 14-20 -- , and - . Karyotype and hemoglobin pattern of Nel-

son's desert bighorn (Ovn ca~zade~zsrs ~zelsonr], 17: 1 10-1 16 -- , and - . Transfemns of two populations of Nelson's

desert bighorn (Ovis canaderzsrs nelsonQ, 18:38-39 , J. Karpowitz, J. Connor, and G. W. Workman. Pregnancy di-

agnosis in free ranging bighorn ewes, 30:24 , S. R. Paul, and H. McCutchen. Chronic sinusitis in the desert

bighorn (Ovis canade~zsrs nelso~zr], 22: 16-20 , and R. Valdez. Comparative morphology, chromosome types,

transferrins and hemoglobins of Iranian and North American desert wild sheep, 20: 13-14

, and P. Webb. Desert bighorn chronic sinusitis in Arizona, 23: 25-27 -- , and J. J. Spillett. Transfemns of desert bighorn in Ar-

izona, Nevada, and Utah, 25:5-6 , G. Welsh, and R. L. Glaze. Chronic sinusitis in desert bighorn

sheep in northwestern Arizona, 29:l-3 . see Bagley and Bunch, 24:33-35 . see deVos, Glaze, and Bunch, 24:44-46 . see Glaze, Bunch, and Bates, 26: 18-21 . see Glaze, Bunch, and Webb, 25:33-35 . see Spillett and Bunch, 23:2-19 . see Spillett, Foote, and Bunch, 19:46-50 . see Stanger, Cresto, Workman, and Bunch, 30:5-7 . see Welsh and Bunch, 26:42-44 . see Welsh and Bunch, 27%-10

Burandt, V. Bighorn sheep patrol and protection problems in California, 3:37-40

. Status of desert bighorn in Inyo Mountains, 14: 1-8 Burger, W. P. Analyzing home range data from desert bighorn sheep, a

comparison of methods, 29: 15-19 , B. L. Zeller, and E. M. Kisler. Movement and habitat use of

desert bighorn sheep in southern Nevada-preliminary report, 27: 2-3

C

Caldes, C. S. see Van den Berge, Caldes, and Haderlie, 28:30-3 1 Call, M. W. A proposed desert bighorn sheep range development project,

10:53-55 , and C. Mahon. Status ofdesert bighorn sheep and recent habitat

developments in Utah, 14: 17 1-1 76 Camilleri, E. P., and D. Thayer. Status of California bighorn in the

South Warner Wilderness of California, 26: 116-1 18 Campbell, B. H., and R. Remington. Bighorn use of artificial water

sources in the Buckskin Mountains, Arizona, 23:50-56 Campbell, T. G. A report on the reintroduction of bighorn sheep onto

the Naval Weapons Center China Lake, California, 28:55-56 Cardenas, J. A. D. Hunting seasons in Mexico (translation), 530-83 Camco, J. W. Bighorn status at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,

13:64-67 Carson, R. D. The Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Inc., 16:47-

5 5 Carter, W. D. A California bighorn transplant on the Charles Sheldon

Antelope Range in Nevada, 17: 15-1 8 . California bighorn reintroduction on the Charles Sheldon An-

telope Range in Nevada, 19:4 1 Cater, B. H. Scabies in desert bighorn sheep, 12:76-77 Chew, D. W., and J. D. Goodman. Studies on the effects of the drug,

succinylcholine chloride on domestic sheep, related to its use as an aid in the capture of desert bighorn sheep, 7: 139-144

Chilelli, C., M. Marshall, and J. G. Songer. Antileptospiral-agglutinins in sera of desert bighorn sheep, 26: 15-1 8

Chilelli, M. E., and P. R. Krausman. Group organization and activity patterns of desert bighorn sheep, 25: 17-24

Ciliax, C. Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn-Nevada, 16: 102-104 Clark, D. 0. The California Department of Food and Agriculture's role

regarding burros, 17: 10 1-102 Clark, K. A. see Hailey et al., 16:79-83 Cleary, E. Selective exclusion fencing in wild burro and bighorn sheep

management, 17: 106-109 Cochran, M. H., and E. L. Smith. Intermountain movements by a desert

bighorn ram in western Arizona, 27: 1-2 . see Miller, Cochran, and Smith, 28:23-25

Cockrum, E. L. The taxonomy of desert bighorn sheep, 5: 17-2 1 Cohen, S. L. Amputation of the forelimb of a desert bighorn sheep, 12:

28-37 Connor, J. see Bunch, Karpowitz, Connor, and Workman, 30:2-4 Coombes, L. J., see Bleich, Coombes, and Sudmeier, 26:56-58 Constantino, G. M. Observation taken during the birth of Candy's 1972

lamb, 16: 1 17-1 19 . Time-lapse photography census of bighorns at the Desert Na-

tional Wildlife Range, 17:59-72 . Additional time-lapse photography field techniques, 18:29-30

Cooper, J. R. Nevada's desert bighorn sheep status report 197 1, 16:66- 78

. Nevada's bighorn sheep- 1973 status report, l8:3 1-37 , and D. J. McLean. Cooperative management and research on

the River Mountain Herd, Nevada, 18:53-60 , and R. P. McQuivey. Nevada's desert bighorn sheep- 1972,

17:l-14 Corzo, R. H. A national wildlife service for Mexico, 7337-89 -. Eighth annual meeting of the Desert Bighorn Council opening

remarks, 8:xv-xviii Craighead, F. C., Jr., and R. F. Dasmann. Exotic big game on public

lands, 9: 1 9-26


Creeden, P. J., and J. L. Schmidt. The Colorado desert bighorn introduction project a status report, 27:34-36

Cresto, J. see Stanger, Cresto, Workman, and Bunch, 30:5-7 Cross, H. T., Jr. Status of the bighorn sheep in Organ Pipe Cactus

National Monument, 8: 1 17-121 Crow, L. Z. A field survey ofwater requirements of desert bighorn sheep,

8:77-83 Cunningham, S. C., and R. D. Ohmart. Aspects of the ecology of desert

bighorn sheep in Camzo Canyon, California, 30: 14-19

D

Dalton, L. B., J. A. Roberson, and J. W. Bates. Capture myopathy in desert bighorns-literature review and treatment, 22:31-36

, S. C. Winegardner, and J. W. Bates. Utah's desert bighorn sheep-a status report, 1978, 22:6-9

. see Winegardner, Dalton, and Bates, 2 1: 18-20 Dasmann, R. F. see Craighead and Dasmann, 9:19-26 Dasmann, W. P. California's big game problem present and future, 8:

153-163 Davila C., J. A. Borregos y berrendos en Mexico, 4:101-103

. Bighorn and antelope in Mexico (translation), 4:104-106 Day, D. F. Paper bighorns? Or wild sheep on the range?, 24: 11-12 Day, J. see Wilson et al., 17:137-154 Dean, H. C. Bighorn investigations in Canyonlands National Park, 19:

7-1 1 . A method of age determination for desert bighorn, 19:54-56 , and J. J. Spillett. Bighorn in Canyonlands National Park, 20:

15-1 7 Decker, J. V. Scabies in desert bighorn sheep of the Desert National

Wildlife Range, 14: 107-108 DeForge, J. R. Man's invasion into the bighorn's habitat, 16: 1 12-1 16

. Stress: Is it limiting bighorn?, 20:30-3 1

. Population biology of desert bighorn sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains of California, 24:29-32

. Stress: Changing environments and the effects on desert bighorn sheep, 25: 15-16

. Population estimate of peninsular desert bighorn sheep in the Santa Rosa Mountains, California, 28:44-45

, C. W. Jenner, A. J. Plechner, and G. W. Sudmeier. Decline of bighorn sheep (Ovis canade~zsis), the genetic implications, 23:63- 66

, D. A. Jessup, and C. W. Jenner. Disease investigations into high lamb mortality of desert bighorn in the Santa Rosa Mountains, California, 26:76-8 1

, and J. E. Scott. Ecological investigations into high lamb mortality, 26:65-76 -- , G. W. Sudmeier, R. L. Graham, and S. V. Segreto. The

loss of two populations of desert bighorn sheep in California, 25: 3 6-3 8 , R. Valdez, V. M. Suarez, and M. Garcia. Status of investigations

of desert bighorn sheep in Sonora, Mexico, 28:41-43 . see Wilson et al., 24: 1-7

Delaney, D. E. Status of desert bighorn sheep in Nevada- 1982, 27: 29-30

. Status of desert bighorn sheep in Nevada- 1983, 28:46-47

. Status of desert bighorn sheep in Nevada- 1984, 29:38-39 Deming, 0. V. Bighorn sheep transplants at the Hart Mountain National

Antelope Refuge, 5:56-67 . Is the desert bighorn sheep a relict species?, 6:93-113 . Bighorn breeding, 7:92-111 . Some bighorn foods on the Desert Game Range, 8:137-143

Dengler, W. F. Notes concerning current policy affecting bighorn management at Joshua Tree National Monument, 11:77-79

. Wildlife research and management in Joshua Tree National Monument: A progress report, 12:50-53

Denney, R. N. The status and management of bighorn sheep in Colo- rado, 20:5-10

Denniston, A. Status of bighorn in the River Mountains of Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 9:27-34

Desert Bighorn Council. Award and remembrance for our friend Chuck, 18:2-3

Devan, G. A. Daily movement and activity of the bighorn, 267-72 . The use of the CO, cap-chur gun at Desert Game Range 1958,

3:50-52 , and J. B. Van den Akker. Handling captive bighorn sheep at

the Desert Game Range, 3:42-46 deVos, J. C., Jr. Preliminary report on four free releases of desert bighorn

in Arizona, 26: 1 1 1-1 12 , R. L. Glaze, and T. D. Bunch. Scabies (Psoroptic ovis) in Nelson

desert bighorn of northwestern Arizona, 24:44-46 , W. Ough, D. Taylor, R. Miller, S. Walchuk, and R. Remington.

Evaluation of a desert bighorn release, 25:29-30 , and R. Remington. A summary of capture efforts in Arizona

since 1977, 25:57-59 -. see Ough and deVos, 28:32-36

. see Remington and deVos, 29:20-23 Dobra, J. L. see Kay, McQuivey, Raffiee, and Dobra, 29:8-12 Dodd, N. L. Ideas and recommendations for maximizing desert bighorn

transplant efforts, 27: 12-1 6 , and W. W. Brady. Cattle grazing influences on vegetation of a

sympatric desert bighorn range in Arizona, 30:8-13 Dominguez, R. S. Analysis of stomach contents of bighorn sheep in

Baja California, 20:2 1-22 Donaldson, B. R. Techniques in habitat evaluation, 10: 1 1 1-1 18 Douglas, C. L. A comparison of observer and camera counts of desert

bighorn, 19:44 . Studies of bighorn in Joshua Tree National Monument, 20:32-

3 5 , and D. M. Leslie, Jr. Simulated effect of transplant removal

from the River Mountains bighorn herd 11, 2826-29 , and C. Norment. Habitat damage by feral burros in Death

Valley, 2123-25 , and L. D. White. Radio-telemetric studies of movements in

desert bighorn sheep, Joshua Tree National Monument, 22:21-22 , and - . Movements of desert bighorn sheep in the Stubbe

Spring area Joshua Tree National Monument, 23:71-77 . see Dunn and Douglas, 26:87-96 . see Ginnett and Douglas, 2 6 3 1-87 . see Hamilton, Holl, and Douglas, 26:50-55 . see Leslie and Douglas, 2697-99 . see Wilson and Douglas, 26: 1-7

-. see Yancey and Douglas, 27:17-25 Drobnick, R. A new wildlife recorder, 1392-26

. Progress report-Utah wildlife recorders, 15:94-96 Dunaway, D. J. Status of bighorn sheep populations and habitat studies

on the Inyo National Forest, 14: 127-146 . Bighorn sheep habitat management on the Inyo National Forest,

a new approach, 15: 18-23 . Winter food habits of California bighorn sheep in the Sierra

Nevada, l6:2 1-29 Duncan, G. E. Human encroachment on bighorn habitat, 4:35-37

. Progress report from the Kofa Game Range, 7: 15 1-1 55 Dunn, W. C., and C. L. Douglas. Interactions between desert bighorn

sheep and feral burros at spring areas in Death Valley, 26:87-96

E

Elder, J. see Wehausen et al., 21:30-32 Elenowitz, A. Preliminary results of a desert bighorn transplant in the

Peloncillo Mountains, New Mexico, 263-11 . Group dynamics and habitat use of transplanted desert bighorn

sheep in the Peloncillo Mountains, New Mexico, 28:l-8 Elliot, H. N. Effects of wild burros on range conditions, 3:9-10

. Bobcats and bighorn sheep, 5:38-41 Engle, R. E. Methods of post mortem description of wildlife ruminants


with two commonly observed lesions in the desert bighorn sheep, 9:68-69b

Eustis, G. P. Winter lamb surveys on the Kofa Game Range, 6533-86

Farmer, G. R. Effects of radioactive fall-out on bighorn, 3: 15-1 7 . Radioactivity in bighorn sheep, 4:23-25

Feldman, B. see Jessup, Mohr, and Feldman, 26:21-25 Femer, G. J. Bighorn sheep along the lower Colorado River: 1974 and

2050, 18:40-45 , and W. G. Bradley. Bighorn habitat evaluation in the Highland

Range of southern Nevada, 14:66-93 Fems, R. E. 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act (Public Law 92-195), 16:

9-1 3 . The 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act, 17:103-105

Fitch, M. E. Summary-populations, 5:114-115 Fletcher, M. R., and R. H. Wauer. Feral burro management at Bandelier

National Monument, New Mexico, 20:54-55 Fodor, P. A. Recent spring work in Death Valley National Monument,

14:147-148 Follows, D. S. Desert bighorn in Canyonlands National Park, Utah, 13:

33-42 Fonseca, M. C. L. Ecto and endoparasites of the desert bighorn (Ovis

canadensis cwmnobates) in northern Baja California, Mexico, 23: 78 , and V. M. 0 . Gonzalez. Behavior of the desert bighorn (Ovis

canadensis weeinsQ in Baja California, 20:24-25 Foote, W. C., and E. F. Graham. Semen collection, freezing and artificial

insemination in wild sheep: A preliminary report, 17: 167-1 69 . see Bunch, Foote, and Spillett, 16: 14-20 . see Bunch, Foote, and Spillett, 17: 1 10-1 16 . see Bunch, Foote, and Spillett, 18:38-39 . see Spillett, Foote, and Bunch, 19:46-50

Forrester, D. J. see Woodgerd and Forrester, 6: Fountain, E. L. Fallout, its relation to wildlife, 5:95-98

. Nuclear test program as it is related to the desert bighorn sheep, 6:87-92

. A bio assay at Nevada test site, 7:53-57 Fredine, G. The National Park Service and its wildlife program, 1:20-

2 1 Freeman, P. E. New Mexico progress report, 7:175-177 Fuller, A. F. Drop net capture of bighorn sheep in Arizona, 28:39-40 Furlow, R. C., M. Haderlie, and R. Van den Berge. Estimating a bighorn

population by mark-recapture, 25:3 1-33

G Gallizioli, S. Overgrazing on desert bighorn ranges, 21:21-23 Garcia, M. see DeForge, Valdez, Suarez, and Garcia, 28:4143 Gates, G. H. Capture of free-ranging desert sheep in Sonora, Mexico,

16:97-101 . see Hightower and Gates, 17: 164-1 66 . see Montoya and Gates, 19:28-32 . see Wilson et al., 17: 137-1 54

Geist, V. On the home range fidelity of bighorn rams, 14:51-53 Gerhart, R. A. Status of bighorn sheep in Arizona, 1986, 30:20-21 Getty, M. H. Ode to the bighorn, 19: 11 Giles, K. R. see Brown et al., 19:61-68 Ginnett, T. F., and C. L. Douglas. Food habits of feral burros and desert

bighorn sheep in Death Valley National Monument, 26:81-87 Glaze, R. L., T. D. Bunch, and J. W. Bates. Surgical treatment for chronic

sinusitis, 26: 18-2 1 -- , and P. Webb. Aberrations of the tooth arcade and

mandible in desert bighorn sheep, 25:33-35 , see Bunch, Welsh, and Glaze, 29:l-3 , see deVos, Glaze, and Bunch, 24:44-46 , see Kilpatric and Glaze, 29:37

Golden, F. H., and R. D. Ohmart. Summer observations on desert bighorn sheep in the Bill Williams Mountains, Arizona, 20:42-45

Goldman, L. C. Summary-bighorn predators, 5: 11 3 Gonzales E., M. Determination of the age of the bighorn sheep, 20:23-

24 Gonzalez, P. D. Skull measurements of male desert bighorns from Baja

California, Mexico, 20:27-29 Gonzalez, V. M. 0. see Fonseca and Gonzalez, 20:24-25 Goodman, J. D. Annual migration of desert bighorn, 6:43-5 1

. A report on the first mid-winter and spring bighorn sheep census in the Santa Rosa Mountains, 1962-63, 7:135-138

, and M. F. Knudsen. Some comments on the distribution of desert bighorn sheep of the Santa Rosa Mountains of southern California, 7: 193-1 98 -. see Chew and Goodman, 7: 139-144 Gordon, S. P. The status of bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 1:3-4 Graber, D. P. see Wehausen et al., 21:30-32 Graf, W. Wildlife administration and management and the Desert Big-

horn Council, 6: 13-20 . Exotics and their implication, 7:42-50

-. Desert bighorn management needs from the academic point of view, 8: 19-27

. How wide is the scope of the Desert Bighorn Council, 10:9-12 Graham, E. F. see Foote and Graham, 17: 167-169 Graham, H. Multiple use coordination on the San Gorgonio bighorn

unit, 10:71-77 -. Habitat studies in the San Gabriel Mountains bighorn range in

California, 12:54-58 . Environmental analysis procedures for bighorn in the San Ga-

briel Mountains, 15:38-45 Graham, R. L. see DeForge et al., 25:36-38 Grant, C. Desert bighorn rock drawings of the Coso Range, Inyo County,

California, lMO-49 Grater, R. K. Recreational values of bighorn other than hunting, 3:53-

5 7 Graves, B. D. Waterhole observations of bighorn sheep;-5:27-29 Gray, G. G. see Simpson et al., 22:26-31 Gray, J. Status of bighorn sheep in Colorado, 1985, 30:22 Gray, R. S. Lasting waters for bighorn, 18:25-27 Gross, J. E. Progress of Mexican bighorn sheep life history and man-

agement investigations in the Big Hatchet Mountains of New Mex- ico, 4:62-65

-. History, present, and future status of the desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) in the Guadalupe Mountains of southeastern New Mexico and northwestern Texas, 4:66-71

. Past and present status of the desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 5:7-8

Guymon, J. G. Utah's bighorn sheep transplant program, 24:84-85 -, and J. W. Bates. Utah's desert bighorn sheep status report, 1983,

27:41-43 -, and - . Utah's desert bighorn sheep status report, 1984,

28149-50 -. see Karpowitz and Guymon, 29:40-41 Guzman, G., Jr. Vegetation zones of the temtory of Baja California in

relation to wild life (translation), 5:68-74

H

Habibi, K. Some aspects of population dynamics of aoudad in the Hondo Valley, New Mexico, 26:12-15

Haderlie, M. K. see Furlow, Haderlie, and Van den Berge, 25:3 1-33 . see Van den Berge, Caldes, and Haderlie, 28:30-3 1

Hailey, T. L. Status of transplanted bighorns in Texas, 6: 129-1 30 . Status of transplanted bighorns in Texas, 7: 149-1 50 . Status of transplanted bighorns in Texas, 8:113-116

-. Status of transplanted bighorns in Texas 1966, 10:59-61 . Reproduction and water utilization of Texas transplanted desert

bighorn sheep, 1 1 :53-58 -. Status of transplanted bighorns in Texas 1969, 13:80-85 -. Reproduction and release of Texas transplanted desert bighorn

sheep, 15:97-100


, R. G. Marburger, R. M. Robinson, and K. A. Clark. Disease losses in desert bighorn sheep Black Gap Area, 16:79-83

. see Wilson et al., 17:137-154 Hall, J. M. Bighorn sheep management on the national forests, 10:47-

5 2 Ham, B. Physical disturbances caused by trapping, 2:5 1-56 Hamilton, K., S. A. Holl, and C. L. Douglas. An evaluation of the effects

of recreational activity on bighorn sheep in the San Gabriel Moun- tains, California, 26:50-55

Hampy, D. B. see Simpson et al., 22:26-3 1 Hansen, C. G. Lamb survival on the Desert Game Range, 450-61

. Significance of bighorn mortality records, 5:22-26

. Progress report from the Desert Game Range, 6:73-82

. Annual meeting minutes of the business meeting April 3, 1963, 7: 180-182

. A dye spraying device for marking desert bighorn sheep, 7: 199- 202

. Progress report from the Desert Game Range, Nevada, 8:69- 76

. Summary of distinctive bighorn sheep observed on the Desert Game Range, Nevada, 95-10

. Management units and bighorn sheep herds on the Desert Game Range, Nevada, 9: 1 1-14

. The bighorn sheep hunter indoctrination program in Nevada, 11:6-7 . The future needs in desert bighorn research, 11:80-85 . Tongue color in desert bighorn, 14: 14-22 . Overpopulation as a factor in reducing desert bighorn popu-

lations, 15:46-52 Hansen, M. C. Activity patterns of California bighorn on Sheldon Na-

tional Wildlife Refuge, 28: 14-1 7 . see Voget and Hansen, 2453-70

Hansen, P. A. Tag-along's first year, 8:145-152 Hansen, R. M. see Walters and Hansen, 22:lO Hartman, T. L. In memorium, 18:iii Hayes, J. A. Rocky Mountain bighorn in desert habitat, 2352-63 Helvie, J. B. Bighorns and fences, 15:53-62

. Census of desert bighorn sheep with time-lapse photography, 16:3-8

, and D. D. Smith. Summary of necropsy findings in desert bighorn sheep, 14:28-42 . see Brown et al., 1951-68 . see Wilson et al., 17:137-154

Hernbrode, R. D., Jr. Growth of one bighorn ram: 1966-1967, 11:73- 76

. Aravaipa bighorn update- 1975, 19:42 Hervert, J. J. see Krausman et al., 29:24-26 Hibler, C. P., T. R. Spraker, and R. L. Schmidt. Treatment of bighorn

sheep for lungworm, 2 1 : 12-1 4 . see Spraker and Hibler, 2 1: 1 1-12

Hicks, L. L. see Wehausen et al., 21:30-32 Hightower, V., and G. Gates. Hand-raising of desert bighorn lambs, 17:

164-166 Hinkes, M. Desert bighorn habitat management plan, Black Mountains,

Arizona, 22:36-38 . see Wilson et al., 24: 1-7

Holl, S. A. Evaluation of bighorn sheep habitat, 26:47-49 . see Hamilton, Holl, and Douglas, 26:50-55

Horst, R. Observations on the kidney of the desert bighorn sheep, 15: 24-37

Houghton, W. E. see Kinzer, Houghton, and Reeves, 275-8 Hungerford, C. R. The king of desert beast, 16:v

Irvine, C. A. The desert bighorn sheep in the Fry Canyon area of South- eastern Utah, 12: 12-1 7 -. Factors affecting the desert bighorn sheep in southeastern Utah,

13:6-13

Jacobsen, R. D., and L. 0. Wilson. Habitat of the Mexican bighorn sheep in the Big Hatchet Mountains of New Mexico, 16:36-46

Jacot, F. Burro management and the National Park Service, 17:98-100 James, S., Jr. Bighorn hunting proposal, 9:82-83 Jenner, C. W. see DeForge, Jessup, and Jenner, 26:76-8 1 -.see DeForge et al., 2353-66

Jantzen, R. A. Bighorns and golden eagles, 5:47-50 . Arizona's 196 1 desert bighorn sheep, 6: 1 14-1 16 . Arizona progress report, 7: 169-174

Jense, G. K., J. W. Bates, and J. A. Roberson. Utah bighorn sheep status report, 23:89-9 1

Jessup, D. A. Diseases of domestic livestock which threaten bighorn sheep populations, 29:29-33 , R. Mohr, and B. Feldman. A comparison of four methods for

capturing bighorn, 26:2 1-25 -. see DeForge, Jessup, and Jenner, 26:76-81 Jett, J. E. Helicopter surveys of the desert bighorn in northwestern

Arizona, 13:48-54 John, R. T. Results of Utah's 1967 desert bighorn sheep hunt, 12: 1-4

. Bighorn hunting, surveys and habitat development in Utah, 13: 1-5

Johnson, E. L. Disease and mechanical injury in desert bighorn sheep, 1:38-42 . Physical and mechanical injuries, 2:47-50

Johnson, R. R. see Ohmart et al., 22:45-46 Jones, F. L. The esthetics of bighorn management, 4:47-48 Jonez, A. Status of bighorn sheep in Nevada, 1:12-15 -. Hunting the desert bighorn sheep in Nevada, 2: 1-5

. Nevada 1958 desert bighorn sheep hunt highlights, 3:20-23a

. The bighorn as a multiple use animal, 4:45-46

. Hunting results in Nevada 1959, 4:76-80

-. Hunting results in Nevada 1960, 597-89 . Progress report 1961 Nevada Fish and Game Department, 6:

119-123 . 1963 progress and hunt report-Nevada, 8:127-132

Jorgensen, M. C., and R. E. Turner, Jr. The desert bighorn sheep of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, 179 1-88

, and - . Desert bighorn of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, 19:51-53

Jorgensen, P. Vehicle use at a desert bighorn watering area, 18: 18-24

Karpowitz, J. F., and J. C. Guymon. Utah's desert bighorn sheep status report, 1985, 29:40-41

-, see Bunch, Karpowitz, Connor, and Workman, 30:24 Kay, F. R., R. P. McQuivey, K. Raffiee, and J. L. Dobra. Economic

evaluation of the 1984 desert bighorn hunt in Nevada, 299-12 Kelly, W. E. Status of the bighorn sheep in Arizona, 1:5-7

. Highlights of 1958 Arizona bighorn sheep hunt, 3:2428c

. Bighorn sheep management recommendations for the state of Arizona, 4:4 1-44

. Lamb and yearling counts, 5:3 la-3 1d -. The meaning of Army Regulation 210-22 1, 10:24-29

. Census and collections of exotic ungulates on the Hearst Ranch, 1052-64

. Report on the first North American Wild Sheep Conference, 16: 1-2

. A comparison of three bighorn areas on the Humboldt National Forest, 23:37-39

. History of bighorn transplants on the Humboldt National For- est-part I, 25:7-9

. The Desert Bighorn Council-the first 25 years, 26100-101

. see Wilson et al., 24: 1-7


Kennedy, C. A. Status of bighorn sheep on the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, Las Cruces, New Mexico, 1:31-33

. Water development on the Kofa and Cabeza Prieta Game Ranges, 2:28-3 1

Kennedy, C. E. Bighorn sheep of the Angeles National Forest, 7: 126- 132

Kiger, J. H. Sheep skull study, 7: 145-148 . Helicopter observations of bighorn sheep on the San Andres

National Wildlife Refuge, 14:23-27 Kilpatric, J. Bighorn transplant in Texas, 19:38

. Texas bighorn sheep reintroduction status report, 20:4

. Texas reintroduction efforts status report 1979, 23:82

. Texas bighorn status report, 24:77

. Status of desert bighorn sheep in Texas- 1982, 26:102-104

. Texas bighorn sheep status 1984, 28:54 , and R. L. Glaze. Texas reintroduction status report 1985, 29:

3 7 King, M. M., and G. W. Workman. Desert bighorn on BLM lands in

southeastern Utah, 26: 104-106 , and - . Preliminary report on desert bighorn movements

on public lands in southeastern Utah, 27:4-6 , and - . Occurrence of contagious ecthyma in desert bighorn

sheep in southeastern Utah, 27: 11-12 , and - . Cattle grazing in desert bighorn sheep habitat, 28:

18-22 Kisler, E. M. see Burger, Zeller, and Kisler, 27:2-3 Kinzer, H. G., W. E. Houghton, and J. M. Reeves. Psoroptes ovis re-

search with bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 27:6-8 Knudsen, M. F. Devices for tracking bighorn sheep, 6:53-56

. A summer waterhole study at Carrizo Spring, Santa Rosa Moun- tains of southern California, 7: 185-192

. see Goodman and Knudsen, 7: 193-1 98 Koplin, J. R. Information on tagging on the Desert Game Range, 4:49-

Range, 4:54-57 Kovach, S. D. An ecological survey of the White Mountain Peak Big-

horn, 23:57-6 1 . Report of the feral burro committee, 26:lOl-102 . Report of the feral burro committee, 27:37-38 . Burro committee report, 28:57 . Feral burro report- 1985, 29:42 . Feral burro report, 1986, 30:23

IOamp, R. C. Preliminary report on Sr90 levels in hock joints of desert bighorn sheep and mule deer, 9:62-67

Krausman, P. R., and J. R. Morgart. In memoriam-Rick F. Seegmiller, 1951-1983, 27:ix

, W. W. Shaw, and J. L. Stair. Bighorn sheep in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness Area, Arizona, 23:40-46

, S. Torres, L. L. Ordway, J. J. Hevert, and M. Brown. Die1 activity of ewes in the Little Harquahala Mountains, Arizona, 29: 24-26

. see Chilelli and Krausman, 25: 17-24

. see Morgart and Krausman, 25:46-49 Krysl, L. J. see Simpson and Krysl, 25:9-15

. see Simpson et al., 22:26-3 1

Lacey, E. N. Capture and care of four species of mountain sheep, 17: 73-80

Lange, R. E., Jr. Psoroptic scabies in wildlife in the United States and Canada, 24: 18-20

Larson, P. A. Progress of Mexican bighorn sheep population and management investigations in the San Andres and Big Hatchet Moun- tains of New Mexico, 6: 126-128

. Bighorn sheep management in New Mexico, 15: 1-6 Leach, H. P. Spring improvement at Death Valley National Monument,

12:38-39

Lee, L. The possible impact of barbary sheep in New Mexico, 4: 15-16 Lee, R. M. Status of bighorn sheep in Arizona: 1985, 29:34-36

. see Brown, Lee, and McQuivey, 20:40-41 Lenarz, M. S. Population status of the desert bighorn, Big Hatchet

Mountains, New Mexico, 21:29-30 Leslie, D. M., Jr. Home range, group size, and group integrity of the

desert bighorn sheep in the River Mountains, Nevada, 21:25-28 . Differential utilization of water sources by desert bighorn sheep

in the River Mountains, Nevada, 22:23-26 . Remnant populations of desert bighorn sheep as a source for

transplantation, 24:36-44 , and C. L. Douglas. Status of population modeling of the River

Mountain Herd, 25:69 , and - . Simulated demography of the River Mountain

Herd, 26:97-99 . see Douglas and Leslie, 28:26-29

Levy, S. H. Bighorns and Papago, 7: 1 14-1 19 Lewis, A. Desert bighorn status on the Mt. Baldy District ofthe Angeles

National Forest, 4:72-75 . Goats on the Angeles, 7: 133-1 34

Light, J. T., Jr. A progress report on bighorn habitat management in the San Bernardino National Forest, 14:9-13

. Analysis of bighorn habitat in the San Gabriel Mountains, 17: 5 3-5 8

Logsdon, H. S. Preliminary results of administering drugs to desert bighorn sheep for capture purposes, 11:27-52

. Use of drugs as a capture technique for desert bighorn sheep, 14:149-169

Low, J. B. An appraisal of desert bighorn sheep techniques, 6: 1-7 . Techniques and the Desert Bighorn Council, 63-9

M

Mahon, C. L. Mineral deficiencies in desert bighorn and domestic livestock in San Juan County, 13:27-32

. Water developments for desert bighorn sheep in southeastern Utah, 15:74-77

. Aging desert bighorn by teeth, 19:57

. see Call and Mahon, 14: 17 1-1 76 Marburger, R. G. see Hailey et al., 16:79-83 Marshall, D. The new Endangered Species Act in relation to Ovis can-

acle~zsls, 18:48-49 Marshall, M. see Chilelli, Marshall, and Songer, 26: 15-1 8 Mathews, W. L. Management responsibilities and practices of the Bu-

reau of Land Management as they relate to the desert bighorn sheep, 4:26-27

McColm, M. A. A history of the bighorn sheep in central Nevada, 7: 1-1 1

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

. Status of Zion National Park desert bighorn restoration project 1975, 20:52-54

. The Zion bighorn restoration project, 1976, 21:9-11

. Zion desert bighorn reintroduction 1977: Project status and activities of released animals, 22:39-42

. Status of Zion desert bighorn reintroduction project- 1978, 23: 8 1

. The Zion bighorn reintroduction-1979, 2436

. Summer activity patterns of free-ranging desert bighorns, Zion National Park, Utah, 28:9-11

. A technique to visually assess physical condition of bighorn sheep, 29:27-28

-. see Bunch, Paul, and McCutchen, 22: 16-20 McLean, D. J. see Cooper and McLean, 18:53-60 McMichael, T. J. Relationships between desert bighorn and feral burros

in the Black Mountains of Mohave County, 8:29-35 McQuivey, R. P. Bighorn research in Nevada, 19:15-18

. Bighorn reintroduction efforts in Nevada, 19:3940

. The status and trend of bighorn in Nevada, 20: 1 1


. Bighorn sheep status report from Nevada, 21:5

. Bighorn sheep status report from Nevada, 222-4

. The status and trend of desert bighorn sheep populations in Nevada, 24:7 1-74

. Condition and trend report for the 1980 sheep populations in Nevada, 25:50-52

. Status of the Stonewall Mountain desert bighorn sheep reintroduction project of central Nevada, 25:60-62

. Status of bighorn sheep in Nevada- 1981,26:113-114

. Report on the 198 1 Black Mountain desert bighorn sheep trapping operation, 26: 1 15-1 16 , and D. Pulliam. Preliminary results of a wild-release desert

bighorn sheep transplant in Nevada, 24:57-61 , and - . Results of a direct release desert bighorn sheep

transplant in the Virgin Mountains of Nevada, 25:55-57 . see Brown, Lee, and McQuivey, 20:40-41 . see Brown, Smith, and McQuivey, 21:32-61 . see Cooper and McQuivey, 17:l-14 . see Kay, McQuivey, Raffiee, and Dobra, 29%-12

Menez, A. Z. Present conditions of the bighorn mountain sheep in the state of Baja California, Mexico (translation), 5: 13-1 6

Mensch, J. L. Survey of bighorn sheep in California, 14: 123-1 26 Merkel, D. E. Status of bighorn in California state parks, 3:30-32

. Bighorn sheep in Anza Borrego Desert State Park, 7:167-168 Merovka, L. J. Legal aspects of bighorn sheep transportation, 5:90-94 Memtt, M. F. Measurement of utilization of bighorn sheep habitat in

the Santa Rosa Mountains, l8:4-l7 Miller, G., and E. L. Smith. Human activity in desert bighorn habitat:

What disturbs sheep?, 29:4-7 Miller, G. D., M. H. Cochran, and E. L. Smith. Nighttime activity of

desert bighorn sheep, 28:23-25 Miller, R. see deVos et al., 25:29-30 Mohr, R. see Jessup, Mohr, and Feldman, 26:21-25 Monroe, R. E. see Russi and Monroe Monson, G. The status of the bighorn

Prieta Game Ranges, 1:26-30 . Water requirements, 2:64-66 . Effects of climate on desert bighorn numbers, 4:12-14 . The importance of population data, 5: 108-109 . Some desert bighorn reflections, 7:61-63 . Long-distance and nightttime movements of desert bighorn

sheep, 8: 11-17 . Group mortality in the desert bighorn sheep, 9:55 . The place of refuges in desert bighorn management, 10:21-23 . The desert pronghorn, 12:63-69

Morton, R. C. B. Citation for distinguished service, 18:2 Montoya, B. Bighorn sheep capture techniques, 17: 155-1 63

. Status report-New Mexico's desert bighorn program, 19:43 , and G. Gates. Bighorn capture and transplant in Mexico, 19:

28-32 Montoya, W. 0. The future outlook for desert bighorn sheep in New

Mexico, 20:49 , and E. Munoz. Bighorn today: New Mexico's desert bighorn

program, 20:4 Moore, T. D. Transplanting and observations of transplanted bighorn

sheep, 2:43-46 . Handling and transporting desert bighorn sheep, 3:47-49 . Progress in trapping and transplanting desert bighorn, 4:58-59 . The Texas bighorn sheep transplant, 5:53-55

Morgan, J. K. see Spillett and Morgan, 13:98-102 Morgan, N. B. Censusing by transect, 5:30-3 1 Morgart, J. R., and P. R. Krausman. The status of a transplanted bighorn

population in Arizona using an enclosure, 25:46-49 . see Krausman and Morgart, 27:ix

Morrison, B. L. History and status of bighorn sheep in the Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, 25:52-54

. Status of aoudad in North America, 28:37-38 Munoz, E. see Montoya and Munoz, 20:4

Munoz, R. Movements and mortalities of desert bighorn sheep in the San Andres Mountains, New Mexico, 25:64-65

. Movements and mortalities of desert bighorn of the San Andres Mountains, New Mexico, 26: 107-108

Myers, L. H. The role of public lands and the BLM in bighorn habitat management in Nevada, 14:94-106

N

Neal, K. S. Desert bighorn sheep in Arizona-in the year 2050, 18:28 Nelson, M. Problems of recreational use of game ranges, 10: 13-20 Norment, C. see Douglas and Norment, 2123-25

Ogren, H. A. Additional information on the status of bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 1:34

. Sheep hunting in New Mexico, 2: 13-1 6 Ohmart, R. D. Burro research in the Havasu Resource Area: Arizona-

California, 18:6 1 , J. E. Walters, R. R. Johnson, and E. J. Bicknell. On estimating

burro numbers: A more reliable method, 22:45-46 . see Cunningham and Ohmart, 30: 14-19 . see Golden and Ohmart, 20:42-45 . see Seegmiller and Ohmart, 19:45 . see Seegmiller and Ohmart, 26:34-38

Olding, R. J. Arizona bighorn sheep status report- 1984, 28:51-53 Olech, L. A. Summer activity rhythms of peninsular bighorn sheep in

Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, San Diego County, California, 23: 33-36

Oliver, J. R., and J. S. Sanchez. Status of bighorn in Baja California, 14:177-178

Ordway, L. L. see Krausman et al., 29:24-26 Ough, W. D., and J. C. deVos, Jr. Intermountain travel comdors and

their management imp1 . see deVos et al., 25:

P

Papez, N. J., and G. K. Tsukamoto. The 1969 sheep trapping and transplant program in Nevada, 14:43-50

Parry, P. L. Development of permanent wildlife water supplies Joshua Tree National Monument, 16:92-96

Patton, R. A. Lava Beds bighorn sheep program-update, 23:88-89 Paul, S. R. see Bunch, Paul, and McCutchen, 22: 16-20 Pederson, J. C. see Bates, Pederson, and Amstrup, 20:ll-12 Pflub, N. The California desert program, 19:4-6 Pillmore, R. E. Problems of lungworm infection in wild sheep, 2:57-

63 Plechner, A. J. see DeForge et al., 23:63-66 Pournelle, G. H. Desert bighorn sheep at the San Diego Zoological

Garden, 8: 1-3 Powell, L. E. Public domain and Arizona bighorn sheep, 1 1 : 13-1 5 Pulliam, D. see McQuivey and Pulliam, 24:57-6 1

. see McQuivey and Pulliam, 25:55-57 Purdy, K. G., and W. W. Shaw. Progress report: Recreational use of

desert bighorn habitat in Pusch Ridge Wilderness, 24:52-56 , and - . An analysis of recreational use patterns in desert

bighorn habitat: The Pusch Ridge Wilderness case, 25: 1-5

R

Raffiee, K. see Kay, McQuivey, Raffiee, and Dobra, 299-12 Ramey, R. R., 11, L. Andaloro, and L. H. White. The status of the

Wheeler Crest reintroduced bighorn herd 12-3-79 to 3-29-80, 24: 78-83

Ravey, R. R., and J. L. Schmidt. Reintroduction of desert bighorn sheep into Colorado National Monument, 25:38-42

Reed, J. J. Highlights of the 1959 Arizona bighorn sheep hunt, 431- 84

. Arizona bighorn sheep hunt highlights, 5:84-86


Reese, J. B., and G. Baxter. Habitat management on the Troy Bighorn Range, Nevada, 17:43-46

. see Albrechtsen and Reese, 14:63-65 Reeves, J. M. see Kinzer, Houghton, and Reeves, 27:6-8 Reffalt, W. C. Some watering characteristics of two penned bighorn

sheep on the Desert Game Range, Nevada, 7:156-166 Remington, R. R. Arizona bighorn sheep status report, 25:4446

. Age and weight relationships of desert bighorn sheep captured in Arizona during 198 1-82, 26:38-42

. Arizona bighorn sheep status report 1983, 27:3941 , and J. C. deVos, Jr. Arizona's first desert bighorn sheep trans-

plant into a natural population, 29:20-23 . see Campbell and Remington, 23:50-56 . see deVos and Remington, 25:57-59 . see deVos et al., 25:29-30 . see Witham, Remington, and Smith, 26:44-46

Riegelhuth, R. A reconnaissance of Sierra bighorn and bighorn ranges in the Sierra Nevada, 9:35-39

Roberson, J. A., and J. W. Bates. Desert bighorn sheep status report, Canyonlands National Park, 24:50-5 1

. see Dalton, Roberson, and Bates, 22:3 1-36

. see Jense, Bates, and Roberson, 23:89-91 Robinson, R. M. see Hailey et a]., 16:79-83 Romero, M. A. Comments on burro information analysis, 19:58-60 Rouse, C. H. Range surveys in bighorn management, 8:133-135 Rowland, M. M., and J. L. Schmidt. Transplantingdesert bighorn sheep-

a review, 25:25-28 Russi, T. L. Notes on a group of peninsular bighorn, 22:43-44

, and R. E. Monroe. Parasitism of big horn sheep in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, California, 20:36-39

Russo, J. P. An evaluation of hunting bighorn sheep in Arizona, 2:6- 12

Anual Borrego Del Desierto,

the Pinacate region, Sonora, Mexico, 9: 15-1 8 . Goals of the council, 10: 1-4 . Fifteen years of bighorn sheep hunting in Arizona, 11:86-93 . Arizona bighorn management and research activities, 1967-68,

12:5-6

S Sanchez, J. S. see Oliver and Sanchez, 14: 177-1 78 Sanchez, P. G. A tamarisk fact sheet, 19:12-14 Sandoval, A. V. Bighorn sheep status report from New Mexico, 23:82-

87 . Management of a psoroptic scabies epizootic in bighorn sheep

(Ovis canadensis mexicana) in New Mexico, 24:21-28 . New Mexico bighorn sheep status report, 25:66-68

Sands, J. L. Current status of desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 8: 123-125

Sausman, K. Survival of captive born Ovis canadensis in North Amer- ican zoos, 26:26-3 1

Schadle, D. P. Arizona's catchment then and now, 2:32-35 . A cooperative effort with the Arizona Game and Fish Depart-

ment, 16:88-91 Schmidt, J. L. see Creeden and Schmidt, 27:34-36

. see Ravey and Schmidt, 25:38-42

. see Rowland and Schmidt, 25:25-28 Schmidt, R. L. see Hibler, Spraker, and Schmidt, 2 1: 12-1 4 Schneegas, E. R. A bighorn sheep habitat management plan, 9:53-54 Scott, J. E. see DeForge and Scott, 26:65-76

. see DeForge et al., 25:36-38 Seegmiller, R. F., and R. D. Ohmart. Feral burros within desert bighorn

habitat, 19:45 , and - . Desert bighorn lamb and adult-yearling diets from

western Arizona, 26:34-38 , and C. D. Simpson. The barbary sheep: Some conceptual im-

plications of competition with desert bighorn, 23:4749

Segreto, S. V. see DeForge et al., 25:36-38 Shaw, W. W. see Krausman, Shaw, and Stair, 23:4046

. see Purdy and Shaw, 24:52-56

. see Purdy and Shaw, 25: 1-5 Shields, P. W. Robert D. "Jake" Meterell, 1928-1973, 17:ii-iii Simmons, N. M. Daily and seasonal movements of Poudre River big-

horn sheep, 6:57-64 . A desert bighorn study: Part one, 7:72-83 . A desert bighorn study: Part two, 8: 103-1 12

-. Heat stress and bighorn behavior in the Cabeza Prieta Game Range, Arizona, 13:55-63

Simpson, C. D., and L. J. Krysl. Status and distribution of barbary sheep in the southwest United States, 25:9-15 -- , D. B. Hampy, and G. G. Gray. The barbary sheep: A

threat to desert bighorn survival, 22:26-3 1 -. see Seegmiller and Simpson, 23:47-49 Sizer, B. Developing better public support for a bighorn management

program, 4:28-34 Sleznick, J. Lava Beds bighorn sheep transplant to South Warner Moun-

tains, Modoc National Forest, 24:62 Sleznick, J., Jr. The bighorn sheep of Lake Mead National Recreation

Area, 7:58-60 Smith, A. E. An approach to burro management in California, 12:59-

62 -. Burro problems in the southwest, 13:91-97 Smith, D. D. Radiation surveillance of ruminants on and about the

Nevada Test Site, 15:lOl-108 -. see Brown, Smith, and McQuivey, 21:32-61 -. see Brown et al., 19:61-68 -. see Helvie and Smith, 14:28-42 Smith, E. L. see Bunch et a]., 24:46-49 -. see Cochran and Smith, 27:l-2 -. see Miller, Cochran, and Smith, 28:23-25 -. see Miller and Smith, 299-7

. see Witham, Remington, and Smith, 26:44-46

. see Witham and Smith, 23:20-24 Smith, R. A. Records of the San Andres Rehge deer hunts, 10:3646 Snyder, W. A. New Mexico's bighorn sheep reintroduction program,

21:3 -. Desert bighorn status in New Mexico- 1980, 24:75 Songer, J. G. see Chilelli, Marshall, and Songer, 26: 15-1 8 Spillett, J. J., and T. D. Bunch. The evolution, systematics, and cyto-

genetics of Ovis, 23:2-19 -, W. C. Foote, and T. D. Bunch. Chromosome and blood analyses

of wild and domestic sheep, 19:46-50 -, and J. K. Morgan. Reported expenditures for bighorn sheep

hunting in Idaho, 13:98-102 -. see Bunch, Foote, and Spillett, 16: 14-20 -. see Bunch, Foote, and Spillett, 17: 1 10-1 16 -. see Bunch, Foote, and Spillett, 18:38-39 -. see Bunch, Webb, and Spillett, 25:5-6

. see Dean and Spillett, 20: 15-1 7 Spraker, T. R. Capture myopathy of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep,

21:14-16 -. Fibrinous pneumonia of bighorn sheep, 2 1 : 17-1 8 -, and C. P. Hibler. Summer lamb mortality of Rocky Mountain

bighorn sheep, 21:ll-12 -. see Hibler, Spraker, and Schmidt, 2 1: 12-14 Stair, J. L. see Krausman, Shaw, and Stair, 23:40-46 Stanger, M. C., J. Cresto, G. W. Workman, and T. D. Bunch. Desert

bighorn sheepriverboat interactions in Cataract Canyon, Utah, 30: 5-7

St. John, K. P. Competition between desert bighorn sheep and feral burros for forage in the Death Valley National Monument, 9:89- 92

Suarez, V. M. see DeForge, Valdez, Suarez, and Garcia, 28:41-43 Sudmeier, G. W. see Bleich, Coombes, and Sudmeier, 26:56-58 -. see DeForge et al., 23:63-66 -. see DeForge et a]., 25:36-38


Sumner, L. Effects of wild burros on bighorn in Death Valley National Monument, 3:4-8

. Bighorn research support by the National Park Service, 1336- 90

. see Banko and Sumner, 6:23-28 Swank, W. G. The influence of trophy hunting on horn size of bighorn

populations, 2: 17-20

Taylor, D. see deVos et al., 25:20-30 Taylor, R. E. L. Disease losses in Nevada bighorn, 17:47-52

. Mortality of Nevada bighorn sheep from pneumonia, 20:51- 52

Tevis, L., Jr. Man's effect on bighorn in the San Jacinto-Santa Rosa Mountains, 3:69-75

. Battle to save the bighorn range in Santa Rosa Mountains of California, 5:103-107

Thayer, D. see Camilleri and Thayer, 26: 116-1 18 Torres, S. see Krausman et al., 29:24-26 Tsukamoto, G. K. Nevada's 1969 bighorn sheep hunt, 14:54-62

. Nevada's desert bighorn sheep activities, 15: 12-1 7

. Bighorn sheep skull identification and certification in Nevada, 23:66-68

. Bighorn sheep status report-Nevada, 23: 107-108

. see Papez and Tsukamoto, 14:43-50

. see Wilson et al., 17:137-154 Turner, J. C. Water consumption of desert bighorn sheep, 14: 189-1 97

. California's first bighorn trapping project, 15:78-81

. see Wilson et al., 24:l-7 Turner, R. E., Jr. see Jorgensen and Turner, 173 1-88

. see Jorgensen and Turner, 19:51-53

Valdez, R. see Bunch and Valde . see DeForge, Valdez, Su

Valverde, J. M. The bighorn sheep of the state of Sonora, 20:25-26 Van den Akker, J. Human encroachment on bighorn habitat, 4:38-40

. Opening remarks by chairman, 5:6

. see Devan and Van den Akker, 3:4246 Van den Berge, R. J., C. S. Caldes, and M. K. Haderlie. A management

update, Kofa National Wildlife Refuge, 28:30-3 1 . see Furlow, Haderlie, and Van den Berge, 25:3 1-33

Villa R., B. Brief notes on the present status and distribution of bighorn sheep in Mexico, 3:77-79

Voget, K., and M. Hansen. Status report: California bighorn on Sheldon- Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuges, 24:63-70

Walchuk, S. see deVos et al., 25:29-30 Walters, J. E. The status of the bighorn/burro situation at Grand Canyon

National Park, 21:7-8 . Bighorn sheep population estimate for the South Tonto Pla-

teau-Grand Canyon, 23:96-106 , and R. M. Hansen. Evidence of feral burro competition with

desert bighorn sheep in Grand Canyon National Park, 22:lO-16 . see Ohmart et al., 22:45-46

Watts, T. J. Status of the Big Hatchet desert sheep population, New Mexico, 23:92-94

Warburton, J. L. A desert bighorn habitat management plan, 13: 14-2 1 Wauer, R. H. see Fletcher and Wauer, 2054-55 Weaver, R. A. Status of the bighorn sheep in California, 1%-11

. Game water development on the desert, 2:2 1-27

. Effects of burro on desert water supplies, 3: 1-3

. Bighorn and coyotes, 5:34-37 -. Progress report on bighorn management in California, 6: 1 17-

118 . Field trips 1965 Desert Bighorn Council meeting, 9:v . Bighorn research in California, 13:68-70

. Conclusion of the bighorn investigation in California, 16:56- 6 5

. California's bighorn management plan, 1 W2-42

. Burro versus bighorn, 17:90-97

. Bighorn management in California-updated, 2 1 :6-7

. The status of bighorn sheep in California, 27:44-45

. Status of bighorn sheep in California, 28:48

. see Wilson et al., 24:l-7 Weaver, R. K. Progress at Aravaipa, 17: 1 17-1 22 Webb, P. M. Trapping on the Kofa Game Range, 2:40-42

. Status of desert bighorn sheep in Arizona, 16:105-111

. Arizona bighorn sheep status report- 1979, 23:94-95

. Arizona bighorn sheep status report-review of past 25 years, 26:108-110

. see Bunch and Webb, 23:25-27

. see Bunch, Webb, and Spillett, 25:5-6

. see Bunch et al., 24:4649

. see Glaze, Bunch, and Webb, 25:33-35 Wehausen, J. D., L. L. Hicks, D. P. Graber, and J. Elder. Bighorn sheep

management in the Sierra Nevada, 21 :30-32 Welch, R. D. Status of desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico, 13:76-79

. Behavioral patterns of desert bighorn sheep in south-central New Mexico, 13:ll4-129

Wells, R. E. Status of the bighorn sheep in Death Valley, 1:22-25 . The Death Valley bighorn project, 3:58-66

-. Progress report on current Death Valley burro survey, 435-87 . How much room does a bighorn need, 5:99-102 . What makes a valid observation?, 6:29-40 . Loose end thinking, 7:19-25 . Progress report on Joshua Tree National Monument bighorn

research, 9:49-52 . Where have we been and where are we going? 10:5-8 . Status of the bighorn in Death Valley and Joshua Tree National

Monuments, 1 1:59-63 . Unanswered questions, 12:70-7 , and F. Wells. The feral burro in Death Valley (summary of a

report), 5:32-33 Wells, F. B. Photographing the bighorn, 390-86 -. Significant bighorn slides, 7:120-121

. see Wells and Wells, 5:32-33 Welsh, G. W. Boat surveys as a technique in bighorn sheep classification

count on Lakes Mead and Mojave in Northwestern Arizona, 8:37- 42

. Arizona desert bighorn sheep status report, 14: 179-1 88 -. What's happening to our sheep, 15:63-73

. Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society receives Ram Award, l8:64 -. Arizona bighorn sheep status report- 1979, 24:76-77

, and T. D. Bunch. Three-year observation of psoroptic scabies in desert bighorn sheep from northwestern Arizona, 26:42-44

, and -- . Census of psoroptic scabies in desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsonl] from northwestern Arizona during 1979- 1982, 27:8-10

. see Bunch, Welsh, and Glaze, 29:l-3

. see Wilson et al., 24:l-7 Werner, W. E. Bighorn sheep water development in Southwestern Ar-

izona, 28: 12-1 3 -. Philosophies of water development for bighorn sheep in south-

western Arizona, 29: 13-14 West, B. Texas bighorn status report 1983, 27:38 White, L. D. see Douglas and White, 22:21-22

. see Douglas and White, 23:71-77 White, L. H. see Ramey, Andaloro, and White, 24:78-83 Wilbanks, J. M. Patrol and protection problems, 3:33-36 Williams, T. Summary-population survey methods, 5:112 Wilson, L. 0. Research and future rehabilitation of the bighorn sheep

in southeastern Utah, 10:56-58 . Past and present distribution of the bighorn sheep on the Col-

orado and Green Rivers in Utah, 11:64-72

44 30-YEAR INDEX 0 Kovach

. The forgotten desert bighorn habitat requirement, 13:108-113

. Whitey the unique desert bighorn, 14:116-122

. The effect of free water on desert bighorn home range, 15232- 89

, The need for genetic research in desert bighorn sheep, 18:50- 52

. The California bighorn reintroduction in southwestern Idaho, 19:33-35 . Biases in bighorn research relating to food preferences and de-

termining competition between bighorn and other herbivores, 20: 46-48

. Desert bighorn research and management biases relating to population characteristics and human interpretations, 2358-70

, and C. L. Douglas, eds. Revised procedures for capturing and re-establishing desert bighorn, 26:l-7

, et al. Guidelines for capturing and re-establishing desert bighorns, 17:137-154 , et al. Desert bighorn habitat requirements and management

recommendations, 24: 1-7 . see Jacobsen and Wilson, 16:36-46

Winegardner, S. C., L. B. Dalton, and J. W. Bates. Capture and transplant of desert bighorn sheep with M-99, 2 1: 18-20

. see Dalton, Winegardner, and Bates, 225-9 Winkler, C. K. Status of the Texas desert bighorn program, 21:4

. Status of desert bighorn sheep in Texas, 2553 Witham, J. H., R. R. Remington, and E. L. Smith. Desert bighorn

summer mortality in southwestern Arizona, 1979, 26:4446 , and E. L. Smith. Desert bighorn movements in a southwestern

Arizona mountain complex, 23:20-24 Wood, J. E. A bibliography of bighorn sheep, 4:l-11

. Supplement to the bibliography of the bighorn sheep, 5:110- 111

. Ecolow and the Desert Bighorn Council, 6: 10-12

Woodgerd, W. R., and K. J. Forrester. Observability of colored ear markers on Rocky Mountain bighorn lambs (Ovis c. canade~uis), 6:65-68

Workman, G. W. see Bates and Workman, 27:25-28 . see Bunch, Karpowitz, Connor, and Workman, 30:2-4 . see King and Workman, 26:104-106

-. see King and Workman, 27:4-6 . see King and Workman, 27:ll-12

-. see King and Workman, 28: 18-22 . see Stanger, Cresto, Workman, and Bunch, 30:5-7

Wylie, T. C., and J. W. Bates. Status of desert bighorn sheep in Can- yonlands National Park- 1978, 23:79-80

Y

Yancey, M. J., and C. L. Douglas. Burro-small vertebrate interactions in Death Valley National Monument, California, 27: 17-25

Yoakum, J. Cooperation on range improvements for wildlife, 6:41-42 . Re-establishing native bighorn ranges, 7: 122-125 . Bighorn food habit-range relationships in the Silver Peak Range,

Nevada, 8:95-102 . Comparison of mule deer and desert bighorn seasonal food

habits, 10:65-70 . Recent literature, 10: 1 19-1 22 . Survey of potential bighorn habitats on National resource land

in the southwest, 17: 123-1 36 . see Wilson et al., 24:l-7

Yousef, M. K. see Bradley and Yousef, 14: 109-1 15

Zeller, B. L. see Burger, Zeller, and Kisler, 27:2-3 Zeman, L. Foundation for North American wild sheep, 249-10

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL 1989-1990

OFFICERS:

Chairman: Vice-chairman:

Past Chairman:

Secretary-Treasurer:

TECHNICAL STAFF:

COMMITTEE CHAIRMEP

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

Jerry L. Wolfe, Colorado Division of Wildlife Allen Cooperrider, U.S. Bureau of Land

Management Vernon C. Bleich, California Department of Fish

and Game Donald Armentrout, Bureau of Land

Management

James A. Blaisdell, William R. Brigham, James R. DeForge, Mark Jorgensen, Andrew V. Sandoval, J. Juan Spillett, Richard A. Weaver (Chairman), George Welsh

Andrew V. Sandoval Jerry L. Wolfe and Allen Coopemder Andy Pauli Paul R. Krausman William R. Brigham Michael Coffey William R. Brigham Richard A. Weaver

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL AWARD RECIPIENTS

BIGHORN TROPHY:

Ralph and Florence Welles, U.S. National Park Service, Death Valley, California Oscar V. Deming, U.S. Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Lakeview, Oregon John P. Russo, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona Charles Hansen, U.S. Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Las Vegas, Nevada Steve James, Jr., Fraternity of the Desert Bighorn, Las Vegas, Nevada M. Clair Aldoux, U.S. Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Fallon, Nevada The Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Inc. Fauna-Silvestre, Mexico City, Mexico

David M. Leslie, Jr., Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 1984 George Welsh, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Kingman, Arizona 1986 Richard Weaver, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California

HONOR PLAQUE:

1968 Nevada Operations Office, Atomic Energy Commission, Las Vegas, Nevada 1969 Pat Hansen, Bighorn Illustrator Specialist, Death Valley, California 1972 lnyo National Forest, Bishop, California 1973 Lydia Berry, Clerk-Stenographer, Desert National Wildlife Range, Las Vegas, Nevada 1979 Jim Blaisdell, U.S. National Park Service, Seattle, Washington 1980 Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep, Upland, California 1981 Dr. Thomas D. Bunch, Department of Animal, Dairy, and Veterinary Sciences, Utah State

University, Logon New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Grant Kinser, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces

1982 Maurice 'Bud' Getty, California State Parks, Sacramento, California 1983 Desert Bighorn Council Ewes I985 Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California 1986 Warren Kelly, U.S. Forest Service, Retired 1988 Andrew ~ a ~ d o v a l , New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Sante Fe, New Mexico

AWARD OF EXCELLENCE:

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

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

CRITERIA FOR BIGHORN RESEARCH FUNDING FROM THE HANSEN-WELLES MEMORIAL FUND

Eligibility: 1. Any organization or person submitting a project and/or program

proposal shall be an active member of the Desert Bighorn Council or sponsored in writing by an active current member of the Desert Bighorn Council.

2. Proposed projects andlor programs must be for the benefit of the desert bighorn or its habitat.

Graduate Students: 1. Must be accepted as an advanced degree candidate at an accredited

college or university and have an advisor in an appropriate department (i.e., Wildlife Management, Biology, Zoology, etc.).

Graduate Students and Others: 1. Must have demonstrated desert bighorn animal or habitat experi-

ence or. be supervised by someone who does have such experience. 2. Must submit an acceptable research project outline, including:

an in-depth literature review, clearly stated objectives, methods of research, time period, a resume of all desert bighorn animal or habitat experience, written approval by the appropriate state and/or federal agency, written approval by the affected land management agency or private landowner(s), and a budget for the allocation of funds. If appropriations from other sources are needed to fully fund the project, these sources should be included.

A brief critique of the student and proposed project should be submitted by the student's major professor. Research proposals generally should follow the outline below.

3. Proposals must be submitted to the Desert Bighorn Council Tech- nical Staff Chairman for consideration prior to December 31 of each year.

4. Proposals will be screened by the Technical Staff of the Desert Bighorn Council and presented to the membership at the annual business meeting for final selection of the recipient@).

5. Recipients must sign a contractual agreement with the Desert Big- horn Council that results of the research project will either be published in a reputable or refereed journal and/or presented at the Desert Bighorn Council for inclusion in the Transactions within a 5-year period following receipt of funds from the Hansen-Welles Memorial Fund. Acceptability ofthe publication will be determined by the Technical Staff of the Desert Bighorn Council.

6. Upon completion of the project and/or program, a complete ac- counting of the funds expended will be forwarded to the Technical Staff of the Desert Bighorn Council. None of the funds awarded are to be used for administrative purposes by the sponsoring college, university or agency, or for travel to meetings.

OUTLINE FOR RESEARCH PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO THE HANSEN-WELLES MEMORIAL FUND

1. TITLE: A concise, clear, and specific description of the proposed research.

2. APPLICANT: Name, address, and telephone number of applicant plus signatures of pertinent people; i.e., advisor, sponsor.

3. TIME PERIOD: Proposed initiation and completion dates for the project.

4. OBJECTIVES: A clear, concise, and complete presentation of primary research objectives.

5. INTRODUCTION: An in-depth presentation of the research, including an extensive review of the pertinent literature.

6. METHODS or PROCEDURES: A statement of working plans, methods to be used, or experimental design.

7. JUSTIFICATION: A description or statement as to the importance

for the proposed research, and the qualifications of the principal investigator(s) to undertake the project. Include what would be lost if the project is not funded.

8. FACILITIES and EQUIPMENT: A list of facilities and/or equipment needed and available.

9. BUDGET: Amount requested from Council and amount needed for entire proposal.

10. PERSONNEL: A list of qualified persons assisting or supporting the applicant.

1 1. PUBLICATION: Potential journals or other publications in which anticipated results from the proposed research might be published.

Bill Adrian 3 17 W. Prospect Ft. Collins, CO 80526 (B) 303/848-2836 (H) 303/484-1576

Donald J. Armentrout Secretary/Treasurer 160 W. Big Springs Rd. #5 Riverside, CA 92507 (B) 714/351-7428 (H) 714/683-7523

Joni Armstrong 2881 "C" W. Long Dr. Littleton, CO 80 120 (B) 303/794-2341 (H) 303/241-2336

James A. Bailey Dep. Wildlife Biology Colorado State University Ft. Collins, CO 80523 (B) 303/491-5002

Elaine Barrett Bighorn Institute P.O. Box 262 Palm Desert, CA 9226 1 (B) 619/346-7334

Jim Blaisdell 5425 Indian Beach Friday Harbor, WA 98250 (B) 206/378-5634

DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP LIST - 1989

Ray Boyd 608 Brown Avenue Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (B) 303/236-63 10 (H) 303/484-5076

William R. Brigham Technical Staff P.O. Box 1806 Carson City, NV 89702 (B) 702/882-1631 (H) 702/827-6850

Dave Brown 1500 N. Decatur Las Vegas, NV 89108 (B) 702/646-3401

Peter Brussard Dep. Biology Montana State University Bozeman, MT 597 15 (B) 406/994-2883

Tom Bunch Dep. of ADVS, UMC 48 15 Utah State Univ. UMC 84322-48 15 Logan, UT 84321 (B) 801/750-2148 (H) 801/753-5425

Bill Burger Telonics, Inc. 932 E. Impala Ave. Mesa, AZ 85204 (B) 602/892-4444 (H) 602/438-9259

Gene Byrne 317 Cty Rd. 265 Rifle, CO 8 1650 (B) 303/945-7228 (H) 303/625-23 12

Marguerite Carpenter 6260 N. Palm #I17 Fresno, CA 93704 (H) 209/439-7669

Rick Clark P.O. Box 222821 Camel, CA 93922 (B) 408/449-2446 (H) 408/625-1383

Leonard Coleman Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, CO 8 1602 (B) 303/945-2341 (H)303/745-7128

Michael A. Coffey Lake Mead Nat. Rec. Area 60 1 Nevada Highway Boulder City, NV 89005 (B) 702/293-8935 (H) 702/293-0320

Allen Cooperrider 1989 Program Chairman P.O. Box 558 LaPorte, CO 80535 (B) 303/236-016 1 (H) 303/482-7970

Els Coopemder P.O. Box 558 LaPorte, CO 80535 (H)303/482-7970

Lance Craighead Biology Dep. Montana State Univ. Bozeman, MT 597 15 (B) 406/994-2883

Don Crane 0584 216 Road Rifle, CO 81650 (H) 303/625-1804

Paul Creeden 7 1 1 Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 8 1505 (B) 303/248-7 175 (H) 303/858-9720

Joe Cresto 474 Nichols Ln. Moab, UT 84532 (B) 801/259-8 193 (H) 801/259-5006

Gene Dahlem 3707 N. 7th St. Phoenix, AZ 85014 (B) 602/241-5509 (H) 6021'938-7279

Alan Dale 1600 W. 12th Avenue Denver, CO 80254 (B) 303/628-6528 (H) 303/321-2767

James R. DeForge Technical Staff P.O. Box 262 Palm Desert, CA 9226 1 (B) 6191346-7334

Daniel E. Delaney 4747 Vegas Drive Las Vegas, NV 89 100 (B) 702/486-5 135 (H) 702/367-0578

John L. Doll 15 18 N. Benton Wy Los Angeles, CA 90026 (B) 61 9/257-0900 (H) 213/483-6426

Charles Douglas 1444 Rawhide Boulder City, NV 89005 (B) 702/739-3219 (H) 702/293-5014

Janet Edmonds 3 18 Canyon Mesa Drive Sedona, AZ 86336

Amy Elenowitz N.M. Dep. Game & Fish Villagra Bldg. -State Cap. Santa Fe, NM 87503 (B) 505/827-9913 (H) 505/989-8261

John Ellenberger 7 11 Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 8 1505 (B) 303/248-7175 (H) 303/243-8405

Richard Etchberger 2 10 Biological Sciences East Univ. Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 (B) 602/621-5239

Larry D. Forman BLM, 1695 Spruce Riverside, CA 92509 (B) 714/351-6402 (H) 714/681-2987

Art Fuller 1025 Hillside Dr. Kingman, AZ 86401 (B) 602/753-3300 (H) 602/757-5748

Kirk Gardner 2370 S. 2300 W. Salt Lake City, U T 841 19 (B) 801/524-4453 (H) 801/966-6110

Bruce Garlinger P.O. Box 1021 Boulder City, NV 89005 (B) 702/293-8526 (H) 702/293-7823

R. Bruce Gill 3 17 W. Prospect Ft. Collins, CO 80526 (B) 303/484-2836 (H) 303/226-4760

Van K. Graham 7 1 1 Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 8 1506 (B) 303/248-7175 (H) 303/241-0842

John P. Gray 7 1 1 Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 8 1506 (B) 303/248-7175 (H) 303/858-7886

Michael R. Grode 7 1 1 Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 8 1506 (B)303/248-7175 (H) 303/434-0249

Jim Guymon P.O. Box 767 Parowan, UT 8476 1 (B) 801/586-2455 (H) 8Ol/477-3555

Shirlene Haas UMC 5210 Utah State Univ. Logan, UT 84322

Lisa Hams 2 10 Biological Sciences E Univ. Arizona Tucson, AZ 8572 1 (H) 602/628-7648

Thomas K. Henry 422 N. Pine Gunnison, CO 8 1230 (B) 303/641-0088 (H) 303/641-1202

Bob Hernbrode 6060 N. Broadway Denver, CO 802 16 (B) 303/291-7271 (H) 303/279-8638

Patricia Hoban P.O. Box.756 Las Cruces, NM 88004 (B) 505/382-5047 (H) 505/524-7302

Ronald Hodson Box 552 Ferron, UT 84523 (B) 801/637-3310 (H) 801/384-2718

Kenneth E. Holmes 17 14 Royal Dr. Las Cruces, NM 8800 1 (B) 5051'525-8228 (H) 505/522-02 1 1

Doug Humphreys N.M. Dep. Game & Fish Villagra B1dg.-State Cap. Santa Fe, NM 87503 (B) 505/827-9911 (H) 505/471-5920

Charles Jemer P.O. Box 262 Palm Desert, CA 9226 1 (B) 619/346-7334


Denis R. Jones Rt. 1, Box 95M Helper, UT 84526 (B) 801/637-3310 (H) 801/472-3062

Robert W. Jurgens 1850 Hualapai Dr. Riviera, AZ 86442 (H) 602/758-2886

Jim Karpowitz 455 W. Railroad Ave. Price, UT 84501 (B) 801/637-3310

Ronald L. Kearns P.O. Box 6290 Kofa Natl. Wildlife Refuge Yuma, AZ 85366 (B) 602/783-7861/7862

Warren E. Kelly 85408 Glenada Florence, OR 97439 (H) 503/997-9087

Steven D. Kovach P.O. Box 1701 San Bruno, CA 94066 (B) 41 5/877-7608 (H) 415/756-7359

Paul R. Krausman Transactions Editor 325 Biological Sciences East Univ. Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 (B) 602/621-3845 (H) 602/743-9392

Raymond Lee Ariz. Game and Fish Dep. 2222 W. Greenway Road Phoenix, AZ 85023 (B) 602/942-3000 (H) 602/865-0064

Kathy Longshore Dep. Biological Sciences Univ. Nevada, Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV 89154 (B) 702/739-3 122 (H) 702/369-3766

Jess Low Utah Cooperative Wildlife

Research Unit Utah State University Logan, UT 84322 (B) 801/750-1336 (H) 801/752-2588

Wayne Ludington P.O. Box 505 Price, UT 84501 (B) 801/637-4584 (H) 801/637-9761

50 MEMBERSHIP

Carl L. Mahon P.O. Box 87 1 Monticello, UT 84535 (H) 801/587-2392

Tom Manning 1490 Glenwood Lane Bishop, CA 93514 (B) 619/873-3386 (H) Same

Don Masden 2300 S. Townsend Ave. Montrose, CO 8 140 1 (B) 303/249-343 1 (H) 303/249-1337

Rosemary Mazaika 2 10 Biological Sciences East Univ. Arizona Tucson, AZ 8572 1 (B) 602/621-1696

William D. McIntyre 4543 1 N. Elm Ave. Lancaster, CA 93534 (B) 805/942-0710

Doug McVean 764 Horizon Dr. Grand Junction, CO 8 150 1 (B) 303/243-6552 (H) 303/245-2 194

Eduardo Menedez A. 1990 Program Chairman Fray Payo de Rivers 320 Lomas Virreyes cp 1 1000 Mexico, D.F. (B) (5) 540-73-90 (H) (5) 824- 1 1-60

Harley Metz 7 62 Horizon Drive Grand Junction, CO 8 150 1 (B) 303/243-6552

Mike Miller CDOW Research Center 3 17 Prospect Ft. Collins, CO 80526 (B) 303/484-2836 (H) 303/532-3443

William H. Miller School of Agribus. & Envir. Res. Arizona State Univ. Tempe, AZ 85287 (B) 602/965-5567 (H) 602/897-2293

Gale Monson 883 1 Riviera Dr. Tucson, AZ 85737

Jim Morris 7 1 1 Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 8 1505 (B) 303/248-7175

Beverly Motz 15 1 E. 16th St. Durango, CO 8 130 1 (B)303/247-0855

William E. Olson 38 14 Clark Blvd. Ontario, OR 97914 (B) 503/889-6975 (H) 503/889-2372

Andy Pauli 420 N. 9th St. Blythe, CA 92225 (B) 6 19/922-56 13 (H) 619/922-5737

Allan Polenz P.O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207 (B) 503/229-5477 (H) 503/658-8040

Rob Raley P.O. Box 573 Meeker, CO 8 164 1 (B) 303/878-4631

Rob Roy Ramey I1 Corson Hall, Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY 14853 (B) 607/255-3017/ext. 238 (H) 607/277-5791

Juan E. Sanchez 16 1 1 N. 2nd Ave. Ajo, AZ 85321 (B) 602/387-6438

Andrew V. Sandoval Technical Staff N.M. Dep. Game & Fish Villagra Bldg. -State Cap. Santa Fe, NM 87503 (B) 505/827-7952 (H) 505/988-1640

Deborah Sandoval #7 Cerrado Dr. Santa Fe, NM 87503 (B)505/473-1130 (H) 505/988-1640

Pam Schnurr 7 1 1 Independent Ave. Grand Junction, CO 8 1501 (B)303/248-7175 (H) 303/241-7366

Joan E. Scott Box 40056 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403 (B) 904/283-4234 (H) 904/871-4329

Linda Siebert P.O. Box 8 Moab, UT 84532 (B) 801/259-6111 (H) 801/259-8445

Rick Sherman 2300 S. Townsend Montrose, CO 8 140 1 (B) 303/249-3431

David Smith 1120 S. 1950 W. Delta, UT 84624 (B) 801/864-4276 (H) Same

Edward M. Spence 35 15 Knoll Lane Apt. 149 Colorado Springs, CO 809 17 (B) 719/710-4236 (H) 719/596-0161

Juan Spillett Technical Staff Box 278 Rockland, ID 83271 (B) 208/236-7500 (H) 208/548-2468

Terry R. Spraker Dep. Pathology Colorado State Univ. Ft. Collins, CO 80523 (B) 303/491-1281 (H) 303/223-5970

Daisan E. Taylor 2914 B Majestic Ridge Las Cruces, NM 88001 (B) 505/678-6372 (H) 505/522-0306

Elroy Taylor 83 18 Targee Ave. Boise, ID 83709 (B) 208/334-9229 (H) 208/377-5549

Larry Thomas 124 W. 200 S. Moab, UT 84532 (B) 801/259-7164 (H) 801/259-5087

George Tsokamato P.O. Box 10678 Reno, NV 89520 (B) 702/789-0500


Lee Upham 2540 S. Dudley Lakewood, CO 80227 (B) 303/236-1762

Raul Valdez Dep. Wildlife, NMSU Box 490 1 Las Cruces, NM 88003 (B) 505/646-37 19 (H) 505/524-8719

George Van Den Berg P.O. Box 157 Durango, CO 8 1302 (B) 303/247-2546

Lee H. Veldhouse 4675 S. Windermere Englewood, CO 80 1 10 (B) 303/781-1316 (H) 303/979-9344

Brian Wakeling 12676 N. 19th P1. Phoenix, AZ 85022 (B) 602/942-3000 (H) 602/482-9783

Mark Wallace 2 10 Biological Sciences East University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 8572 1 (B) 602/621-5239 (H) 602/795-97 18

Curtis Wamck 3028 S. Sweetgum Circle St. George, UT 84770 (B) 801/673-3545 (H) 8Ol/673-28lO

Richard A. Weaver P.O. Box 1383 Loomis, CA 95650 (B) 916/445-4283 (H) 916/652-5234

John D. Wehausen 1417 Bear Creek Bishop, CA 935 14 (H) 619-873-4563

George W. Welsh Technical Staff 1954 Golden Avenue Kingman, AZ 86401 (B) 602/753-3612 (H) Same

Darrel Weybright 2638 Calle Primavera Santa Fe, NM 87505 (B) 505/827-9934 (H) 505/473-7547

Glenda Wise 12009 Dannhaus Needville, TX 7746 1 (B)713/240-4567 (H)409/793-4748

Jerry Wolfe 2771 Cheyenne Dr. Grand Junction, CO 8 1503 (B) 303/248-7 175 (H) 303/245-7356

Gar W. Workman Dep. Fisheries & Wildlife Utah State Univ., UMC 52 10 Logan, U T 84322 (B) 80 1/750-246 1 (H) 801/563-5544

Bruce L. Zeller 1500 N. Decator Las Vegas, NV 89 108 (B) 702/646-3401 (H) 702/645-1526

1957 Las Vegas, Nev M. Clair Aldous 1958 Yuma, Arizo Gale Monson and Warren Kelly 1959 Death V M. Clair Aidous 1960 Las Cruces, New Mexic 1961 Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico 1962 Grand Canyon, Arizona James Blaisdell Charles Hansen 1963 Las Vegas, Nevada Al Ray Jonez Charles Hansen 1964 Mexicaii, Baja Calif., Mexico Rudolfo Hernandez Corzo Charles Hansen 1965 Redlands, California John D. Goodman John P. Russo

iiver City, New Mexic John P. Russo John P. Russo John P. Russo W. Glen Bradley W. Glen Bradley Tiliie 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

David E. Pullia Rick Brigham Jim Guymon Bill Dunn

Van Horn, Texas Jack Kiipatric Bill Dunn Needles, California Vernon C. Bleich Donald Armentrout Grand Junction, Colorado Jerry L. Wolfe Donald Armentrout

R CONTRIBUTIONS TO

submitted to the Editor at or before the Council's annual meeting to be considered for the current edition of The Transaclions.

or size A4. Do not use "erasable," Light weigbt, or mimeo bond paper. the t Double space throughout, with 3-cm margins. Do not hyphenate at the LI right margin. Type the name and complete address ofthe 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 leR comer and the page number in the top right comer. The author's name and affiliation at the time the study was performed follows the title.

any copy.

STYLE: Proceed from a clear stntement of purpose through introduction, study area, methods, results, and discussion. Sequence ofcontents: title, authors, abstracf key words, introduction, study area, methods, mman letters, Do

or equivalent on 215 x

dl. Manage. 52[1, Suppl.1) for example of prevailing style.

ofeach illustration, light

fint time each is mentioned. TRANSMIlTAL LE'ITER: When the manuscript is s

ABSTRACX An abstract of about 1- age of a letter to the Editor, stnting the intent to submit the manuscri

r. krawsman, · 1.5-year-old ram averaged 38.6 and 38.7 c over 2 successive days (fig. 5). body...

Documents