317

 Chapter 6

Chapter 6 – Game and Other

High-Interest Species

The childhood training of hunters is not so much practical training

as the opening of spiritual doors.... Hunting had put a premium on

physical good health, on sensitivity to environment and to the nuances

and clues in a delicate and beautiful world, on independence,

confidence, persistence, generosity, and had given them a powerful

sense of the non-human creation.

 — Paul Shepard (1973)

There is a value in any experience that exercises those ethical restraints

collectively called ‘sportsmanship.’ Our tools for the pursuit of wildlife

improve faster than we do, and sportsmanship is a voluntary

limitation in the use of those armaments... a peculiar virtue of

wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud

or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by

his own conscience rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficult

to exaggerate the importance of this fact.

 — Aldo Leopold (1966)

Key Questions

• What is the current status of major

game and other high-interest animal

populations in the coastal mountains

of southern California?

• What are the primary management

issues for these species?

This chapter examines the current status

and trends of the most popular game animals

in the region as well as several other species

that are of particularly high interest to people.

Hunting and fishing are popular activities in

the assessment area. State and federal land and

resource management agencies invest considerable time and effort managing habitats and

monitoring populations of game species.

Many of the same habitats that are important

to rare and at-risk species are also important

to game animals.

Fish

The majority of anglers who go to the

mountains and foothills of southern California head for the lakes, where a variety of popular sport fish are planted. These lake fisheries

are primarily managed by local water districts

and the California Department of Fish and

Game (CDFG), usually with minimal involvement from the public land management

agencies. For this reason we do not address

lake sport fish in this report. For those who

prefer flowing waters, there are many fishable

mountain streams. The primary sport fish in

these streams is the rainbow trout.

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Status and Distribution: Rainbow trout

occur throughout the assessment area. A few

populations of native steelhead remain (an

anadramous or ocean-going rainbow trout; see

“Fish” section, chapter 4) primarily in the Los

Padres National Forest where some are now

landlocked by downstream barriers to the ocean.

However, most of the trout found in southern

California today are stocked hatchery fish. Many

streams in the region are regularly restocked to

maintain a recreational fishery.
318

A few local streams that support productive, self-sustaining trout populations have

been designated as “wild trout streams” by the

CDFG. These include Sespe Creek and Piru

Creek in the southern Los Padres, the West

Fork of the San Gabriel River in the San

Gabriel Mountains, and Deep Creek and Bear

Creek in the San Bernardino Mountains

(Deinstadt et al. 1990). These streams have

special fishing regulations, including catchand-release requirements and barbless hooks.

Wild trout management plans have been developed for Deep Creek and Bear Creek

(Hoover 1983; Hoover and Deinstadt 1989).

Several other local trout streams have the

special catch-and-release and barbless hooks

regulations. These include the San Antonio

River, South Fork of the San Jacinto River,

and Pauma Creek and the West Fork of the

San Luis Rey River on Palomar Mountain.

Habitat: Rainbow trout can tolerate a variety of water conditions but prefer cool waters.

They do best in streams that have deep pools

and a well-developed canopy of riparian trees

that shade the water (Deinstadt et al. 1990).

Aquatic vegetation provides excellent cover for

trout.

Management Issues: The biggest issue for

the region’s trout streams is maintaining adequate stream flows. Most of the wild trout

streams lie below dams, and their survival is

dependent on sustained water releases from

those impoundments. Organizations such as

Cal Trout, Trout Unlimited, and San Diego

Trout have played a major role in persuading

water agencies to commit to sustained water

releases in these systems. Trout stocking programs must increasingly consider the effects

of this activity on native fish and amphibians,

many of which are rare and declining. The

special regulations applied to keep wild trout

waters from being overfished generally seem

to be working. Many of these streams are in

back-country areas that are relatively difficult

to access. This helps reduce fishing pressure

on these waters.

Birds

Quail, turkeys, and pigeons are addressed

in this section because they are the most commonly hunted game birds in the assessment

area. Waterfowl and doves are not addressed

because, although they do occur in the mountains, they are not found in large numbers and

few people go to the mountains to hunt them.

California Quail (Callipepla californica) and

Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus)

Status and Distribution: California quail

and mountain quail are native gallinaceous

birds found throughout the assessment area

in a wide variety of habitats. California quail

range from sea level to about 5,000 feet, while

mountain quail extend from below 2,000 to

over 9,000 feet (Garrett and Dunn 1981). The

range of these two species overlaps broadly,

but they have distinct habitat and behavioral

differences. Mountain quail occur in more

densely vegetated habitats and are dispersed

in relatively small coveys of fewer than fifteen

birds. California quail prefer more open habitats and typically form coveys of forty to sixty

birds, with some containing well over one

hundred (Leopold et al. 1981). California

quail tend to burst into flight to escape a threat,

while mountain quail have a greater tendency

to flee on foot. The larger coveys, propensity

to fly, and occurrence in open habitats make

the California quail more desirable to hunt

and thus a much more popular game bird.

Habitat: Mountain quail typically inhabit

forested habitat and dense chaparral, while

California quail tend to frequent openings and

edge habitats (Leopold et al. 1981). Prime

habitat for mountain quail is extensive and well

represented on public lands within the assessment area. This is less true for California quail;

commonly called “valley quail,” they reach

peak abundance in valley and foothill bottom

lands where there is a good mix of openings,

brushy cover, and water. These productive

bottom-land habitats are predominantly in

private ownership and many acres have been

converted to croplands and subdivisions that

support few quail. California quail do occur

in the chaparral-covered hills but mostly at low
319

 Chapter 6

densities. Biswell et al. (1952) found 100 quail

per square mile in unbroken chaparral, with

numbers increasing to 250 per square mile in

areas where small openings had been created

by burning.

Management Issues: The California

quail’s popularity as a game bird, combined

with the fact that much of its prime lowelevation habitat has been converted for other

uses, make it a higher priority for management

attention than mountain quail. California

quail do best in habitat mosaics that contain a

mix of open feeding areas and protective

brushy cover. Small clumps of trees and shrubs

scattered among open feeding areas provide a

maximum of “edge” and are ideal for quail

when water is available (Leopold 1977). Large,

continuous blocks of a single vegetation type

provide poor habitat. Thus large stands of

unbroken chaparral support low numbers of

quail.

The most commonly encountered habitat limitations for quail on national forest

system lands are lack of water and lack of suitable openings in the chaparral. Over the years,

a large number of water developments (e.g.,

guzzlers and catchments) have been installed

to improve habitat for quail. Local chapters

of Quail Unlimited have been particularly instrumental in organizing and implementing

these projects. Prescribed burning has been

used to create openings and increase age-class

diversity in the chaparral.

Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)

Status and Distribution: This popular

game bird is native to much of North America

but was not present in California at the time

of its discovery and settlement by Europeans

(Burger 1954). Believing that the distribution

of the wild turkey was restricted by geographical barriers and not by a lack of suitable habitat

in California, the State Division of Fish and

Game began, in the early 1900s, to experiment with introductions of turkeys in various

parts of the state (Burger 1954). Most of the

early introductions failed, often because the

planted birds were too tame to survive for long

in the wild. Yet, transplant and release techniques have improved substantially over the

last thirty years and wild turkey populations

are now established in many parts of California, particularly along the west side of the

Sierra Nevada and in the northern and central coast ranges (CDFG 1990).

Turkey populations have been well established for many years in the foothills of

Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and northern

Santa Barbara counties (Smith and Browning

1967; Garrett and Dunn 1981). The southernmost mountains of California are some of

the last areas of potential habitat in the state

to have self-sustaining wild turkey populations. A population was successfully

established in the San Bernardino Mountains

north of Lake Arrowhead in 1988. It is now a

very popular resource that attracts hunters

from throughout southern California and

Nevada (S. Loe, San Bernardino NF, pers.

comm). In 1993, turkey populations were established on private lands at several locations

in the mountains of San Diego County. Introductions are also proposed for the

Cleveland National Forest but have been delayed by litigation over the potential impact

on native species. However, the turkeys

planted on private lands have dispersed widely

and some presently occur on the Cleveland

National Forest.

Habitat: Turkeys can occur in a variety of

habitats but are found primarily in pine, oak,

and mixed hardwood/conifer woodlands. Important habitat components include large

roost trees, openings that contain herbaceous

plants, and the production of mast crops, especially acorns. Water is a critical habitat

requirement for turkeys; they need to drink

at least once a day and thus require a dependable year-round water supply (Schorger 1966).

In southern California, the limited availability of year-round water substantially reduces

the amount of suitable habitat for this species. It is perhaps significant that the turkey’s

native range corresponds quite closely with

portions of the country that receive appreciable

and dependable rainfall in the summer

months.
320

Management Issues: Little is known about

the effect of introduced turkey populations on

California’s native flora and fauna. There are

no published scientific studies that directly

address the subject; research on turkeys in

California has focused on their numbers,

movements, and food habitats (Schorger 1966;

Smith and Browning 1967; Grenfell et al.

1980). On one hand, it can be accurately argued that there is no evidence that turkeys are

imperiling native species. However, it can be

equally well argued that there is no evidence

demonstrating that they do not cause harm.

This uncertainty has led to recent controversy

over the appropriateness of introducing turkeys into areas where there are rare plants and

animals that could potentially be harmed (via

increased competition or direct consumption).

A California Department of Fish and

Game plan to introduce turkeys on public

lands in San Diego County has been stalled

by a lawsuit, filed by the California Native

Plant Society, over concerns about the impact

on native species. These concerns have also

triggered opposition from the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Turkeys that

wander onto Cuyamaca Rancho State Park

from nearby private lands are now being

trapped and relocated outside the park’s

boundaries (LaRue 1995). CDFG is currently

conducting a study to assess the effect of introduced turkeys on native species. Hopefully

the results will be sufficiently conclusive to

resolve this controversy.

This has been a frustrating process, particularly for those who have long sought a

huntable turkey population in the San Diego

area. It evokes deep-seated concerns among

sportsmen who have watched the wildlife

management agencies increasingly shift their

focus to threatened and endangered species,

often at the expense of game management

programs. Unfortunately, this understandable

frustration has caused some individuals to

publicly suggest that an anti-hunting agenda

is driving the land management agencies handling of the issue (Zieralski 1996). These

baseless allegations only serve to polarize relationships between individuals, organizations,

and agencies that should be working together

to gather the necessary information and find

workable solutions.

Band-tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata)

Status and Distribution: The only pigeon

native to California—and not to be confused

with rock pigeons found in urban areas—

band-tails occur throughout the assessment

area and can be abundant in lower montane

woodlands. The word “palomar” is Spanish for

“pigeon roost,” and thus Palomar Mountain

is named for this species. There is little current information on the status of band-tailed

pigeon populations in southern California.

Statewide Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data

indicate a slight declining population trend

since 1980, but it is not statistically significant (Sauer et al. 1997).

Habitat: Band-tailed pigeons are closely

tied to oaks, occurring both in pure stands and

in conifer/oak woodlands. They spend the

summer months primarily in montane woodlands but commonly move downslope into the

foothills in winter (Garrett and Dunn 1981).

Management Issues: Band-tailed pigeons

do not receive a lot of management attention.

A fast-moving bird found primarily in densely

wooded areas, the band-tailed pigeon is often

difficult to shoot. This probably explains why

the birds do not experience a lot of hunting

pressure in the assessment area. Protection of

oak and conifer/oak woodlands is important

to this species.

Mammals

The most popular game and nongame

animals tend to be large mammals. Those that

generate the most interest in the assessment

area are addressed below.

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

Status and Distribution: The mule deer

is the most important big game animal in

southern California. The annual fall deer hunt

attracts thousands of people to the mountains

and foothills. The California Department of

Fish and Game’s management of this harvest
321

 Chapter 6

is aimed at providing a sustained yield and

keeping the deer population within the food

supply of its natural habitat, thus preventing

damage to native habitats, agricultural crops,

and orchards.

Recent harvest rates and CDFG population estimates (fig. 6.1) suggest that the deer

population is relatively stable in the southern

half of the assessment area and increasing in

the northern half (Loft et al. 1998). CDFG

estimates populations by geographic deer assessment units (DAUs). The northern half of

the assessment area is in the “central coast

(south)” unit or DAU #9, and the southern

half is in the “south coast” unit or DAU #10

(Loft et al. 1998). The central coast (south)

unit is the only one in the state that showed

an increasing population trend from 1990 to

1996 (Loft et al. 1998). No explanation is

given for this increasing trend.

The central coast unit is 15,600 square

miles in size and the south coast unit encompasses 7,800 square miles. The central coast

unit is twice the size of the south coast unit

but reportedly has over four times as many

Figure 6.1. Deer population estimates for 1990–1996 by deer assessment unit (DAU)(from Loft et al. 1998).

These units extend beyond our assessment area boundaries, but the Central Coast DAU encompasses the four

northern mountain subareas (southern and northern Santa Lucia Ranges, southern Los Padres ranges, and

Castaic Ranges) and the South Coast DAU encompasses the five southern subareas (San Gabriel, San Bernardino,

San Jacinto and Santa Ana mountains, and San Diego ranges).

deer (fig. 6.1) (Loft et al. 1998). Longhurst et

al. (1952) estimated that there were 79,000

deer in the south coast unit in the late 1940s,

but 1990s estimates range from 16,000 to

24,000 (Loft et al. 1998). This decline is attributed primarily to large-scale habitat loss

on private lands as southern California’s human population has grown.

Habitat: Characteristics of deer habitat use

vary geographically. Deer are essentially

nonmigratory in the low-elevation mountain

ranges that lack extensive conifer forests (i.e.,

the Santa Ana Mountains, San Diego County’s

mountains, and most of the Los Padres National Forest). In these areas deer reach their

highest densities in oak woodlands, riparian

areas, and along the margins of meadows and

grasslands. They occur in lower densities in

open scrub and young chaparral but tend to

avoid dense brushfields. In chaparral habitats,

deer thrive on early successional vegetation

that is prevalent for a period of one to ten years

after a fire (Bowyer 1981).

Bowyer (1984, 1986) studied habitat use

of mule deer in a low-elevation mountain

Estimated Number of Deer

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

South Coast

Central Coast
322

range—on 4,900-foot East Mesa in the

Cuyamaca Mountains of San Diego County.

He concluded that these southern mule deer

are primarily a species of meadows, oaks, and

pines. Meadows were found to be particularly

important fawning habitat. Deer grass

(Muhlenbergia ridgens), a tall bunch grass, was

used extensively by fawns for concealment

cover. Adult deer typically bedded down in

oak and pine stands.

The availability of free water during summer was also a major factor regulating the

distribution of mule deer on East Mesa. Areas

farther than 0.6 miles from free water received

limited summer use. Areas without sources of

summer water typically were devoid of fawns.

Thus, habitat manipulations greater than 0.6

miles from summer water sources are unlikely

to increase populations of mule deer (Bowyer

1996).

In the higher elevation mountain ranges

(i.e., Mount Pinos and the San Gabriel, San

Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains), deer

commonly undertake altitudinal migrations

between summer and winter ranges.

Nicholson (1995) and Nicholson et al. (1997)

studied tradeoffs associated with migration in

a mule deer population within the upper Santa

Ana River watershed in the San Bernardino

Mountains. In this area, deer exhibit a mixed

pattern of migration—some migrate every

year, others migrate in some years, and others

never migrate.

Migratory deer move upslope for the summer months, into well-watered habitats on

north-facing slopes. These areas are dominated

by pine forest but also contain openings,

meadows, and riparian habitats that the deer

utilize. Nonmigratory deer spend the summer

on lower slopes, primarily utilizing the limited pine forests that occur there as well as oak

woodlands. In winter, deer congregate on

lower, south-facing slopes where they heavily

utilize oak woodlands. Use of chaparral and

sagebrush also increases in winter (Nicholson

et al. 1997).

Nicholson et al. (1997) suggest that migration presents a tradeoff between optimizing

habitat quality and increasing risk of predation. The upper-elevation summer habitats

were of higher quality, but moving to and from

them each year increases the risk of predation.

Monitoring of radio-collared deer found that

migratory females did have higher mortality

rates than nonmigratory females and the mortality occurred exclusively during migration

(Nicholson et. al. 1997).

The partial deer migration pattern observed by Nicholson in the San Bernardino

Mountains probably occurs in the other highelevation mountains as well. Vaughn (1954)

and Cronemiller and Bartholomew (1950)

note the occurrence of upslope migrations in

the San Gabriel Mountains.

Management Issues: During all seasons,

Nicholson (1995) found that deer largely

avoided areas regularly occupied by humans

(e.g., campgrounds and summer cabins), to

the extent that they did not utilize habitats

that would otherwise be of high quality (e.g.,

riparian and meadows). He concluded that

mule deer primarily avoid negative features of

the environment and consequently often avoid

potentially valuable resources at the same time.

The tendency of mule deer to avoid areas

where there is frequent human use is a significant management issue. Of particular

significance are meadow and riparian habitats

that are preferred fawning areas and extremely

limited in extent. Such habitats are also desirable locations for recreationists and, as the

number of recreationists increase, it becomes

more difficult to find areas that do not receive

frequent human use. In the San Jacinto Mountains, Schaefer (1999) reported that deer

reproductive rates in 1994 and 1995 were representative of a nutritionally stressed

population. This could be because they are

selecting remote areas that do not contain

high-quality foraging habitat.

Bowyer and Bleich (1984) studied the effects of cattle grazing on mule deer in the

mountains of San Diego County. They used

spotlight transects and pellet group counts to

compare deer abundance in two areas of similar meadow habitat, one which was grazed

(Laguna Mountain) and one which was not
323

 Chapter 6

(Cuyamaca Rancho State Park). They found

deer to be significantly more abundant in the

ungrazed meadows, with mean densities of two

deer per 100 hectares (240 acres) in the cattle

grazed meadows and twenty-two deer per 100

hectares in the ungrazed meadows (Bowyer

and Bleich 1984). The deer pellet group analysis had a similarly significant result.

Bowyer and Bleich (1984) attribute the

reduced densities of deer in cattle-grazed areas to changes in habitat condition. Important

forage plants for deer were either absent or

reduced on the grazed range, and these areas

also lacked dense stands of deer grass, which

are known to provide valuable cover for does

with fawns. Bowyer and Bleich (1980, 1984)

used old photographs to determine that deer

grass was also scarce in Cuyamaca’s meadows

when they were grazed by livestock prior to

the state park’s establishment. The deer grass

recovered after cattle were removed. It should

be noted that when this study was done in

1979, the intensity of grazing on Laguna

Mountain was much higher than it is now. It

would be useful to repeat this study to compare ungrazed conditions with the more

moderate grazing regime that is in place today.

North of the assessment area, in the San

Francisco Bay region, there is now considered

to be a deer over-abundance problem in many

suburban areas (McCullough et al. 1997).

Evidently, deer in this area have become increasingly tolerant of human development and

no longer avoid valuable resources in their vicinity. While this type of behavior has long

been a management issue for white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus) in the eastern United

States, it is rarely reported for mule or blacktailed deer.

There are several reasons why it is unlikely

that the tolerance of human disturbance exhibited by deer in the San Francisco Bay area

will spread to more remote areas. First, the

remaining wildland habitats in the bay area

are highly productive for deer but very limited in size and surrounded by development.

Thus, carrying capacity is easily exceeded and

deer move outside natural habitats into developed areas to survive. If they had other options on where to go, they presumably would

try to avoid developed areas. Nicholson’s study

indicates that in remote areas, where they have

the ability to avoid developed areas, they tend

to do so even if it means living in lower-quality habitat.

Second, the habitat reserves in the bay area

are not open to hunting; thus, for many years

now, deer in those areas have not been hunted.

This undoubtedly increases their ability to

habituate to nonthreatening human activities.

Studies have shown that mule deer can habituate to predictable events such as highway

traffic, which they learn is not dangerous

(Yarmoloy et al. 1988). However, in remote

areas where deer are annually hunted and they

have choices on where to go, it is highly probable that they will continue to avoid areas

where there is high human use.

Habitat Management: The most common

habitat manipulation used to benefit deer is

prescribed burning, usually in chaparral. Burning creates openings in the brush and

temporarily increases the quality of deer forage (Dasmann and Dasmann 1963). After

observing marked increases in deer harvested

in San Diego County following the Laguna

fire in 1970, Bowyer (1981) developed deer

management guidelines that emphasize burning to rejuvenate browse.

Bowyer (1986) points out that the proximity of burned areas to other vegetative types

preferred by mule deer may be a critical factor

in determining the response of deer populations to alterations in old-growth chaparral.

Short-lived increases in forage quality in areas

with few deer will do little to promote population growth. Thus, chaparral burns will be

most effective when they are conducted in areas that adjoin meadow, oak, or pine

vegetation types that contain summer water

sources.

Based on the aforementioned work of

Nicholson et al. (1997) and Bowyer and Bleich

(1984), additional consideration should probably be given to management of recreation

facilities and livestock grazing in key deer

fawning areas.
324

The bighorn sheep population in the San

Gabriel Mountains is, or at least was, considered the largest single sheep population in

California (DeForge 1980; Torres et al. 1994).

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

Bernardino mountains.

The San Rafael Peak/Cobblestone Mountain population was established in the 1980s

Nelson’s bighorn sheep

(Ovis canadensis nelsoni)

Status and Distribution: The Nelson’s bighorn sheep is an animal of high public interest

and is considered both a viability concern and

a game animal in various parts of its range.

Southern California populations are concentrated in the eastern San Gabriel Mountains

and eastern San Bernardino Mountains, with

a small reintroduced population around San

Rafael Peak and Cobblestone Mountain in the

southern part of the Los Padres National Forest (fig. 6.2) (Torres et al. 1994).

but is believed to be declining (Torres et al.

1994). Originally considered to be a population of twenty-five to fifty animals, it is now

believed to support fewer than twenty-five animals (fig. 6.3) (Torres et al. 1996a). Sheep in

the San Bernardino Mountains are considered

to be two separate populations, the larger in

the vicinity of San Gorgonio Mountain and

the other on the northern edge of the range in

desert-facing canyons such as Furnace, Bousic,

Arctic, and Marble canyons.
325

 Chapter 6

Figure 6.3. The estimated size of Nelson’s bighorn sheep populations in the assessment area as reported by

Torres et al. (1994, 1996).

 Population Size Class

Population Status 1993 1995

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

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

Northern San Bernardino Mts. Native < 25 < 25

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

Habitat: For detailed analyses of bighorn

sheep habitat utilization in the San Gabriel

Mountains, see Light and Weaver (1973) and

Holl and Bleich (1983). Escape terrain is identified as the single most important habitat

component for sheep in these mountains. Escape terrain is defined as steep slopes (80

percent or greater) with abundant rock outcrops and sparse shrub cover (canopy cover

of 30 percent or less) (Holl and Bleich 1983).

Sheep in the San Gabriel Mountains range

widely in elevation—from 3,000 to 10,064

Figure 6.4. Bighorn sheep census data collected from 1977 to 1998 in the eastern San Gabriel

Mountains. These data come primarily from annual aerial surveys conducted by the California

Department of Fish and Game, although they also include some ground survey results.

sus data. However, census data collected since

the early 1980s suggest that the San Gabriel

Mountains’ bighorn sheep population has declined substantially over the last twenty years

(fig. 6.4).

Several research projects in the 1970s and early

1980s generated detailed information on the

distribution, abundance, and habitat relationships of sheep in this range (Weaver et al. 1972;

Light and Weaver 1973; DeForge 1980;

Harlacher 1980; Holl and Bleich 1983). Several distinct herds have been identified, with

primary concentrations in the Bear Creek

drainage (San Gabriel Wilderness), the upper

East Fork of the San Gabriel River and Cattle

Canyon (both in the Sheep Mountain Wilderness), San Antonio Canyon, Cucamonga

Canyon, and the South and Middle Forks of

Lytle Creek. Population estimates across this

area ranged from 665 to 740 animals between

1976 and 1982 (Holl and Bleich 1983). These

estimates were extrapolated from aerial cen0

100

200

300

400

500

1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

Number of Sheep Observed
326

Habitat: Tule elk prefer open habitats and,

where available, they tend to congregate in

marshy or ephemerally flooded areas that provide high-quality forage. Historically, tule elk

feet (i.e., the summit of Mount San Antonio).

During winter and spring, they are primarily

distributed in lower canyons between 3,000

and 6,000 feet, where they occupy escarpment

chaparral, particularly ceanothus-mountain

mahogany associations. In summer, bighorn

sheep use all elevations. Their distribution

within an area is dependent on escape terrain

and open vegetation types.

Management Issues: The primary factors

affecting Nelson’s bighorn sheep populations

in the assessment area are human disturbance,

vegetation condition, water availability, and

predation. Bighorn sheep are considered sensitive to the presence of humans, particularly

high levels of human activity in their line of

sight, and may abandon habitat due to human encroachment (Light and Weaver 1973).

The effects of human activity on sheep in the

San Gabriel Mountains have been studied by

Light and Weaver (1973), Hamilton (1983),

and Holl and Bleich (1983) with varying findings and conclusions. Light and Weaver

(1973) suggest that increased human use in

the Baldy Notch area, particularly summer use

concentrated around the Mount Baldy Ski

Area base facility, has caused sheep to avoid

areas that were previously utilized. Conversely,

Holl and Bleich (1983) suggest the absence

of sheep in that area may be more related to

habitat condition. However, both agree that

increased summer use on the north-facing side

of Mount San Antonio would have a negative

effect on bighorn sheep.

Torres et al. (1996a) attribute the pronounced decline of sheep in the San Gabriel

Mountains to lack of recent fires, resulting in

habitat succession that has altered the abundance of suitable sheep habitat and enhanced

the vulnerability of sheep to mountain lion

predation. The high sheep numbers observed

in the late 1970s coincide with recent fires in

those areas. As vegetation matures it becomes

less palatable and there is a reduction in the

amount of open, escape terrain. CDFG is currently conducting an analysis of factors that

are potentially related to the population decline. These factors include changes in winter

range, disease, human activity, and drought

(Torres et al. 1996a).

The apparent stability of the bighorn

population around Mount San Gorgonio may

be related to the remoteness of the area. Most

of the occupied sheep habitat is within the San

Gorgonio Wilderness Area, and the surrounding area to the east and south is largely

unroaded. This population is deemed stable

enough to support an extremely limited annual hunt. Since 1997, CDFG has issued one

tag per year to hunt bighorn sheep in the San

Gorgonio area.

Tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannodes)

Status and Distribution: Tule elk were

once abundant in California’s Central Valley

and adjacent valleys and foothills. However,

the fertile valley habitats they preferred have

been almost entirely converted to agricultural

land, and the tule elk now occurs only in established reserves and in areas outside or on

the fringe of its native range where introduced

populations have persisted (e.g., the Owens

Valley and Point Reyes) (McCullough et al.

1996). Approximately twenty-two tule elk populations can currently be found in scattered areas

across California, three of which are in or near

the assessment area in San Luis Obispo and

Monterey counties (McCullough et al. 1996).

Tule elk herds occur (1) in valleys on both

sides of the southern half of the La Panza

Range, (2) on Camp Roberts along the Salinas River, and (3) within Fort Hunter Liggett

on the eastern side of the northern Santa Lucia

Range. (fig 6.5). Population estimates from

1994 indicate that the La Panza herd is the

biggest in the state, with between 550 and 600

animals. There are an estimated 200 to 250

elk on Fort Hunter Liggett and 90 to 100 on

Camp Roberts (McCullough et al. 1996). All

three of these populations were established in

the 1980s through relocation of elk from the

Tupman Reserve, Owens Valley, and Potter

Valley.
327

 Chapter 6

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

sizes in those areas to minimize habitat degradation and damage to agricultural products,

and (3) maintaining genetic diversity in the

remaining populations, which are relatively

small and isolated (McCullough et al. 1996).

The La Panza herd utilizes valley habitats that

are on private lands. Carefully regulated fall

hunts are held at La Panza and Fort Hunter

Liggett to maintain herd sizes at levels the

available habitat can support.

used upland foothill areas during favorable

plant-growth periods, and most calves were

born in those areas in March and April. As

the upland plants dried up, the elk returned

to bottom lands where they remained for most

of the year (McCullough et al. 1996). This

pattern still occurs today in a few of the larger

areas where elk can make seasonal movements.

However, agricultural crops such as alfalfa are

often utilized now in place of marshy bottom

lands.

Management Issues: The primary management issues for tule elk are (1) ensuring

the long-term availability of large enough

blocks of suitable habitat, (2) managing herd
328

Black bear (Ursus americanus)

Status and Distribution: Black bears reportedly did not occur in the assessment area

when the California grizzly bear still inhabited the region (Storer and Tevis 1978). After

the grizzly was extirpated around the turn of

the century, black bears started to appear in

Ventura and Santa Barbara counties (Grinnell

et al. 1937). The Department of Fish and

Game supplemented this natural range expansion by moving twenty-eight black bears from

the Sierra Nevada into the San Gabriel and

San Bernardino mountains during the early

1930s (Burgduff 1935; Vaughan 1954). The

current black bear population in the San

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

Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains is believed to be primarily descended from those

supplemental introductions. Black bears apparently migrated across San Gorgonio Pass

into the San Jacinto Mountains, where a small

bear population remains.

Black bears now occur throughout the assessment area with the exception of the Santa

Ana Mountains and the mountains in San

Diego County (fig. 6.6). They are most common in montane conifer forests in the San

Bernardino Mountains, San Gabriel Mountains, and the Mount Pinos/Pine Mountain

region. Black bear populations are reported

to be increasing statewide (CDFG 1998), and
329

 Chapter 6

Habitat: Black bears occupy a variety of

habitats, but populations are densest in montane forests with a wide variety of seral stages

(CDFG 1998). In the southern California

mountains, black bears will also follow riparian corridors down into low-elevation habitats.

Habitat diversity is important to bears, which

eat herbaceous vegetation in the spring, carrion and invertebrates in down woody material

in the summer, and mast from shrubs and oaks

in the fall.

A number of studies of black bear habitat

utilization have been done in the assessment

area, all by graduate students at California

State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Moss

(1972) and Stubblefield (1992) studied black

bear ecology in the San Gabriel Mountains.

Novick investigated habitat preferences and

denning characteristics of black bears in the

San Bernardino Mountains (Novick 1979;

hunter take figures from southern California

suggest they are either stable or increasing in

most of the assessment area (fig. 6.7) (CDFG

1998). Some recent bear sightings in the

mountains of San Diego County suggest that

they may be dispersing south from the San

Jacinto Mountains.

Novick et al. 1981), and Boyer (1976) studied

food habitats of black bears in the Banning Canyon area of the San Bernardino Mountains.

Management Issues: Black bears have become a management problem in some

recreation areas (e.g., Forest Falls and Barton

Flats in the San Bernardino Mountains). Individual bears become habituated to feeding

in these areas, particularly where food and

trash are not properly managed and kept in

bear-proof containers. This has led to increased

human-bear encounters and even several wellpublicized “attacks” where people were

threatened or injured by bears who were exhibiting aggressive behavior or entering

occupied tents in search of food.

Black bears also periodically wander into

residential areas at the base of the mountains,

particularly along the front of the San Gabriel

Mountains. These incidents generate a lot of

media attention and are potentially dangerous, particularly if a disoriented bear becomes

cornered and reacts aggressively. However, the

incidents which have occurred to date have

not resulted in human injuries and Fish and

Game wardens are usually able to scare the

bear back up into the mountains.

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

1998).Number Taken by Hunters

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Los Angeles

Riverside

San Bernardino

Santa Barbara

Ventura
330

Habitat: Wild pigs occur in riparian areas, oak woodlands, grasslands, and mixed

hardwood-conifer forests. Mast crops

Mountain lion (Puma concolor)

Status and Distribution: Mountain lions

occur in all of the mountain ranges within the

assessment area. Circumstantial evidence suggests that lions have become more numerous

in California in the past several decades (Torres

et al. 1996b). This widely suspected, but

poorly documented, population increase has

been linked to increased predation of bighorn

sheep and deer and increases in human-lion

encounters. On the other hand, mountain lions are considered imperiled in some of

southern California’s highly fragmented wildlands. Beier (1993) conducted a radio-tracking

study of mountain lions in the Santa Ana

Mountains and Chino Hills. He found that

the cougar population in this area consists of

only about twenty adults and is in danger of

dying out if movement corridors are not sustained to allow immigration from Palomar

Mountain. Termed the “Pechanga Corridor,”

this habitat linkage between mountain ranges

is primarily private land.

Habitat: Mountain lions are habitat generalists. They tend to be most common in the

habitat types preferred by their primary prey—

mule deer. Within these habitat types, lions

tend to prefer rocky cliffs, ledges, and other

areas that provide cover (Dixon 1982). They

have extremely large area requirements; in the

Santa Ana Mountains, only about twenty adult

lions occupy over 800 square miles of wildland habitat (Beier 1993).

Management Issues: Management of

mountain lions in California has become a

controversial and politicized issue. Much of

the controversy centers on whether regulated

mountain lion hunts should be allowed.

Mountain lion hunting has not occurred in

California since 1972 (Torres et al. 1996b).

In 1990, a state ballot initiative (Proposition

117) was passed into law designating the

mountain lion as a “specially protected mammal.” This designation allows for the issuance

of depredation permits but does not permit a

hunting season.

There has recently been an increase in

depredation incidents and in the number of

mountain lion attacks on humans (Torres et

al. 1996b). From 1910 through 1985, there

were no verified mountain lion attacks on

humans in California. Since 1986, there have

been nine verified attacks on humans, with

two fatal attacks on adult women in 1994

(Torres et al. 1996b). At the same time, there

is legitimate concern about the long-term viability of some mountain lion populations

(e.g., in the Santa Ana Mountains) that are

being isolated by urban encroachment (Beier

1993).

Nowhere is the management dilemma better exemplified than in the mountains and

foothills of southern California. While their

continued existence is threatened in some parts

of the region, lions are also causing some serious problems. In 1986, two nonfatal lion

attacks on small children in Caspers Wilderness Regional Park (Santa Ana Mountains)

resulted in the closure of that park to children

for several years. In 1994, a woman was attacked and killed by a mountain lion while

hiking in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park (San

Diego County). In 1995, a man was attacked

but escaped injury while mountain biking in

the Angeles National Forest (San Gabriel

Mountains). Pet depredations have also increased along the wildland-urban interface

(Torres et al. 1996b) and there is evidence that

lion predation is having a negative impact on

Peninsular Ranges’ bighorn sheep populations

(USDI Bureau of Land Management et. al.

1996).

Wild pig (Sus scrofa)

Status and Distribution: The wild pig is

an introduced species that has become well

established in Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and

Santa Barbara counties (fig. 6.8). In Monterey

County, wild pigs have been reported at densities of 1.3 to 2.1 per square mile (Pine and

Gerdes 1973). Increases in hunter take over

the past six years (fig. 6.9) suggest that the pig

population may be gradually increasing.
331

 Chapter 6

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

Management Issues: Wild pigs are a fairly

popular game animal, but there is also concern about the habitat damage they cause in

some areas. Pigs can become abundant in some

habitats. Where they occur in high numbers,

their tendency to dig up the ground in search

of food can cause major disturbance to soil

and vegetation. They also compete with native wildlife for food, particularly for mast

crops such as acorns. Wild pigs can become

difficult to manage in areas where they have

become abundant. A year-round hunting season, with no limits on the number that can be

taken, typically has little effect on the population size.

Wild horse (Equus caballos)

Status and Distribution: A wild horse

population exists in the interior valleys on the

east side of the southern Santa Lucia Range

(fig. 6.10). Referred to as the Black Mountain

herd, in 1996 it reportedly consisted of eightyone horses (BLM 1996).

Habitat: Wild horses can occur in a variety of habitats, but they typically prefer open

grasslands.

Management Issues: The Wild Horse and

Burro Protection Act of 1971 provides

particularly acorns, are an important food

(Zeiner et al. 1990).
332

Wild burro (Equus asinus)

Status and Distribution: A burro population of approximately fifty to sixty animals

currently exists in the eastern San Bernardino

Mountains (fig. 6.10). This population is organized into multiple loose herds that stay

primarily in wildland habitats east of Baldwin

Lake. Prior to a roundup in 1997, several large

direction for managing wild horse populations. This legislation directs federal land

management agencies to maintain herd sizes

at sustainable levels while minimizing resource

and property damage. When herds become too

large, animals are captured, transported to

holding facilities, and ultimately sold at public auctions. The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) is in charge of the wild horse and burro

adoption program.

Because of the limited amount of suitable

habitat at Black Mountain, roundups are held

approximately every two years to keep the herd

size at or below twenty animals. About two to

four horses are rounded up each time and

transferred to BLM facilities for adoption. This

management strategy appears to be working

well, since the habitat on Black Mountain is

not being degraded by the current level of use

(K. Cooper, Santa Lucia Ranger district, pers.

comm.).

burro herds had become habituated to humans

and taken up residence in housing tracts on

the east side of the Big Bear Valley. In August

and September of 1997, seventy-seven of these

“town burros” were rounded up and taken out

of the area.

Habitat: Burros are primarily found in

arid desert-montane habitats. They are

pportunistic herbivores that roam across large

areas in search of food resources.

Management Issues: The Wild Horse and

Burro Protection Act of 1971 provides direction for managing wild burro populations.

This legislation directs that burros removed

from the wild are to be cared for and put up

for adoption at public auctions.

Wild burros roaming residential areas in

the Big Bear Valley have been a management

problem for many years. These burros have

been adored and fed by some residents and

disliked by others, primarily because of their

habit of knocking over trash cans and dispersing the contents. Their presence along highly

traveled roads also created a dangerous safety

problem for both burros and people; on average, thirteen burros a year were hit and killed

by vehicles in the Big Bear area (USDA, Forest

Service 1998). Fortunately no people have been

killed in these accidents, but the potential is

clearly there.

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

1999b).

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

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

Monterey

San Luis Obispo

Santa Barbara

Number Taken by Hunters
333

 Chapter 6

After a lengthy environmental review and

public involvement period, the Forest Service

conducted an extensive roundup of the townhabituated burros in 1997. The animals were

taken to BLM holding facilities and

subequently put up for adoption. This action

has greatly reduced the number of burros hit

by vehicles; only one has been hit since the

roundup.

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

California.