Status of bighorn sheep in California

Full text

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47
20
Status of bighorn sheep in
California
Clinton W. Epps,1 Vernon C. Bleich,2 John D. Wehausen,3 and Steven G. Torres1
1 Resources Assessment Program, California Department of Fish and Game, 1416 Ninth Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814, USA
2 Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep Recovery Program, California Department of Fish and Game,
407 West Line Street, Bishop, CA 93514, USA
3 University of California, White Mountain Research Station, 3000 East Line St., Bishop, CA
93514, USA
Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 47:20–35
Successful management of bighorn
sheep requires detailed and timely
knowledge of the status and distribution of
populations of those unique ungulates. This
inventory of bighorn sheep in California is
intended to update previous population
inventories published by Wehausen et al.
(1987), Weaver (1989), and Torres et al.
(1994; 1996). For the 1994 population
inventory, the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) established a Geographic
Information System database showing the
historical and then-current distribution of
bighorn sheep populations in the state. The
1996 inventory summarized changes known
to have occurred during the preceding two
years. Here, we present updates to the sizes,
distributions, and identities of these
populations (Table 1), organized by
"metapopulation" management units (Figure
1) as defined by Torres et al. (1994). These
updates reflect demographic changes in
bighorn sheep populations over nine years,
including extirpations and reestablishments
through translocation or natural
recolonization, as well as new data on the
distribution and size of those populations.
Because of the varying precision of the
population estimates, we again present them
categorically as size classes. The estimates
are derived from helicopter surveys by
CDFG, counts and camera monitoring at
waterholes, minimum counts derived from
non-invasive genetic sampling (Epps 2004,
2005), mark-resight estimates, and minimum
ground counts. Because some estimates are
based on few data and may not have been
updated since previous inventories, we also
present information on the source of each
estimate, and indicate those areas where new
information is needed. This approach will
help establish priorities for future efforts and
provide opportunities to better assess data
uncertainties.
During 1995–2004, a number of
legislative and taxonomic revisions
concerning bighorn sheep in California
occurred. Although the Peninsular bighorn
sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) is no
longer considered a valid subspecies
(Ramey II 1995; Wehausen and Ramey II
1993), the populations in the Peninsular
Ranges were listed as endangered under the
distinct vertebrate population provision of

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47 21
Table 1. Extant and extirpated populations of bighorn sheep in California as of the end of 2004.
Population size class estimates typically include all sex and age classes. Size class estimates of 0 do not
necessarily indicate lack of use by bighorn sheep, as some of these areas are known to be used by
transient rams. "Population Status" indicate which populations have changed status due to extinction or
recolonization, or redefinition since 1993 (Torres et al. 1994) and 1995 (Torres et al. 1996). "Data
Source" indicates the most recent year of data collection, as well as the source and type of data.
Metapopulation Population 1Population
Status Population
Size Class Data Source-Year of Most
Recent Data
Carrizo Canyon N3101–150 CDFG 20045,6
Peninsular Ranges Vallecito N 101–150 CDFG 20045,6
South San Ysidro N325–50 CDFG 20045,6
North San Ysidro N325–50 CDFG 20045,6
Coyote Cyn. N325–50 CDFG 20045,6
Santa Rosa, E. of Hwy
74 N3201–300 CDFG 20045,6
Santa Rosa, W. of Hwy
74 N351–100 J. DeForge7
San Jacinto N 25–50 S. Ostermann7
San Gabriel San Gabriel N 201–300 CDFG 20045
San Rafael R 25–50 CDFG 20025
Western Transverse
Range Caliente Peak E 0 No new data
Sonoran W. Chocolate
(Gunnery) N 101–150 CDFG 20045
E. Chocolate (Colorado
R.) N 51–100 CDFG 20045
Orocopia-Mecca Hills N 51–100 CDFG 20045
Chuckwalla A 25–50 No new data
Cargo Muchacho E 0 No new data
Palo Verde E 0 No new data
South Mojave Newberry-Ord N325–50 C. Epps 2001–20038,9
Rodman E 0 C. Gallinger 20039
Bullion R <25 No new data
Sheephole A 51–100 CDFG 20045
San Gorgonio N 51–100 CDFG 20045; T. Anderson9
N. San Bernardino
(Cushenbury) N 25–50 CDFG 20025,6
Little San Bernardino N 151–200 CDFG 20015
Queen N 51–100 CDFG 20035; C. Epps 20028,9
Pinto E 0 No new data
Eagle N 51–100 C. Epps 2002–20038,9
Coxcomb N <25 C. Epps 2002–20038,9
Granite-Palen N <25 C. Epps 2002–20038,9
McCoy E 0 No new data
Little Maria E 0 No new data
Big Maria E 0 No new data
Riverside E 0 No new data
Iron N2<25 C. Epps 2001–20038,9
Turtle N 51–100 C. Epps 2001–20038,9; CDFG
20005

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47
22
Table 1 (continued).
Metapopulation Population 1Population
Status Population
Size Class Data Source-Year of Most
Recent Data
South Mojave (cont) Whipple R 25–50 CDFG 19995
Old Woman N 51–100 C. Epps 2001–20038,9
Chemehuevi N 25–50 C. Epps 2002–20038,9
Sacramento E20 C. Epps 2001–20038,9
Clipper N 25–50 C. Epps 2001–20038,9; CDFG
20045
South Bristol N251–100 CDFG 20045
Marble N 101–150 CDFG 20045,6
Central Mojave Cady N 25–50 C. Epps 2001–20038,9
North Bristol E20 C. Epps 20038,9
Old Dad- Kelso-Marl N 201–300 CDFG 20045,6
Club Peak N325–50 C. Epps 20028,9
Granite N 25–50 C. Epps 2001–20038,9
Providence N 51–100 C. Epps 2001–20038,9
Wood-Hackberry N 25–50 C. Epps 2001–20038,9
Castle-Hart-Piute N 51–100 C. Epps 2001–20038,9; Viceroy
Mine 20037
Dead N 25–50 No new data
Clark N 25–50 CDFG 20045
Central North
Mojave Kingston-Mesquite N 51–100 CDFG 20045
Nopah N 51–100 CDFG 19995
Soda E 0 G. Sudmeier 20049
Avawatz A 51–100 CDFG 19955
North Mojave Granite-Quail E 0 No new data
Owlshead N2<25 G. Sudmeier 20049
Eagle Crags R <25 CDFG 20025
Argus-Slate R 51–100 R. Osgood 20039; CDFG 19935
Coso E 0 No new data South Panamint N 51–100 CDFG 19965; (Oehler 1999)
Tucki N 25–50 No new data Panamint Butte-Hunter N 51–100 No new data
Tin N 51–100 No new data
Dry Mtn-Last Chance N 51–100 J. Wehausen 20038,9
Inyo N 101–150 J. Wehausen 20038,9
Deep Springs N2<25 S. Hetzler 20009
North White N 201–300 CDFG 20047
South White R 25–50 CDFG 20047
Cache Peak E 0 No new data Very Southern
Sierra Nevada Chimney Peak E 0 No new data
Southern Sierra
Nevada Great Western Divide E 0 No new data
Olancha Peak E 0 No new data
Mt. Langley R 51–100 CDFG 20047
Mt. Williamson N 25–50 CDFG 20047
Bubbs Creek N4<25 CDFG 20047
Mt. Baxter N 51–100 CDFG 20047
Sawmill Cyn. N3<25 CDFG 20047
Taboose E 0 No new data
Mt. Tom E 0 No new data

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47 23
Table 1 (continued).
Metapopulation Population 1Population
Status Population
Size Class Data Source-Year of Most
Recent Data
Southern Sierra
Nevada (continued) Wheeler Ridge R 51–100 CDFG 20047
Convict-McGee Cr. E 0 No new data Central Sierra
Nevada Lee Vining-Bloody-
Lundy Cyn. R 25–50 CDFG 20047
Sonora Pass E 0 No new data
Sweetwater E 0 No new data
Truckee River E 0 No new data
Northeastern
California Skedaddle-Smoke Cr. E 0 No new data
Warner E 0 No new data
Lava Beds/ Mt. Dome E 0 No new data
Mt. Shasta E 0 No new data
Goosenest E 0 No new data
Bogus Mt. E 0 No new data
1 N = native; A = augmented; R = reintroduced; E = extirpated
2 Population status has changed since 1995 (Torres et al. 1994, 1996)
3 Population has been redefined since 1995 (Torres et al. 1994, 1996)
4 Newly-discovered population
5 Helicopter survey-capture
6 Mark-resight population estimates
7 Direct counts from ground observations
8 Partially based on minimum genotypic counts from non-invasive genetic data
9 Field observations of animals or sign
Table 2. Bighorn sheep population size class profile and summary by metapopulation for the
2004 population inventory, with comparison to total population numbers from the 1995
inventory (Torres et al. 1996).
Metapopulation 0 <25 25–50 51–100 101–150 151–200 201–300 >300
Peninsular Ranges 0 0 4 1 2 0 1 0
San Gabriel 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Western Transverse
Range 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Sonoran 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0
South Mojave 7 4 5 7 1 1 0 0
Central Mojave 1 0 5 2 0 0 1 0
Central North Mojave 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0
North Mojave 2 3 2 5 1 0 1 0
Very Southern Sierra 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Southern Sierra Nevada 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0
Central Sierra Nevada 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Northeastern California 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 30 9 21 23 5 1 4 0
1995 Total 36 13 20 17 10 10 0 0
Net Change Since 1995 -6 -4 +1 +6 -5 -9 +4 0

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47
24
the Endangered Species Act in 1998.
Meanwhile, the uniqueness of Sierra Nevada
bighorn sheep was established on the basis
of genetic and morphometric evaluations
(Ramey II 1995; Wehausen and Ramey II
2000). Formerly O. c. californiana, now
classified as O. c. sierrae (Wehausen et al.
2005), Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep also
were listed as endangered by the federal
government in 2000.
Populations
Five apparent natural recolonizations
and 2 apparent population extirpations are
suspected to have occurred since the 1993
population inventory (Table 1); 2 of those
recolonizations (Deep Springs Range and
South Bristol Mountains) were noted but not
described in the 1995 inventory. In the
Mojave Desert, radiocollared ewes were first
documented traveling to the nearby South
Bristol Mountains in 1993 and subsequently
were found to bear lambs. At least 2 ewes
permanently emigrated to that range, and
that small founding population has since
increased considerably. Similarly, in 2000,
fresh sheep sign was observed in the Iron
Mountains, and during subsequent field
investigations a small, reproducing
population was found to be resident, with
occasional movement of radiocollared rams
to and from the nearby Old Woman
Mountains. Bighorn sheep were also
reported again in the Deep Springs region
where they likely had been extirpated.
Recent evidence of recolonization of the
Owlshead Mountains by bighorn sheep has
also been reported. Investigations at all
known water sources in the Sacramento
Mountains, formerly the site of a viable
population of bighorn, suggested that no
population remains in that area. Only 6 fecal
samples were recovered at one location in 3
trips during 2001–2002, and genetic
analyses indicated that they all were derived
from 2 rams (C. Epps, unpublished data).
Finally, anecdotal evidence suggests that the
Resting Spring Range near Death Valley and
the Calumet Mountains in the South Mojave
may support populations of bighorn sheep,
but further investigation is needed before
they can be added to the population
inventory.
More information has been obtained
on several of the populations where
reestablishment by translocation previously
had been attempted. The reintroduced San
Rafael population, thought to be non-viable
(Torres et al. 1994), is now known to be
extant. Recent surveys of the Eagle Crags
during 2002 detected few ewes and
numerous rams, and additional research is
needed to determine if that population
remains viable. In the North Bristol
Mountains, genetic analyses of fecal
samples obtained during summer at known
water sources demonstrated that all samples
were from rams (C. Epps, unpublished data),
suggesting that a viable population no longer
exists.
Recent research resulted in the
redefinition of several populations. In the
Peninsular Ranges Metapopulation; the
Pinto-Inkopah, Jacumba-Inkopah, Laguna,
and Tierra Blanca populations (Torres et al.
1994) are now combined under the Carrizo
Canyon population. The population in the
Fish Creek Mountains has been included
with the Vallecito Mountain population.
Further, the North Anza Borrego population
has been subdivided into 3 populations
(South San Ysidro Mountains, North San
Ysidro Mountains, and Coyote Canyon).
Finally, the Santa Rosa Mountains

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47 25
Native
Reintroduced
Extirpated
Status
Central
Sierra Nevada
South Sierra
Nevada North Mojave
Central Mojave
South Mojave
SonoranPeninsular
Ranges
San Gabriel
Western Transverse
Range
North Central Mojave
Northeastern
Figure 1. Metapopulations of bighorn sheep, with updated population polygons. Redefined Peninsular
population polygons are loosely depicted; an updated GIS map is under preparation.
population has been split into 2 populations
occurring on the east and west sides of
Highway 74.
In the South Mojave
Metapopulation, we have combined the
Newberry and Ord populations into a single
population. In the Central Mojave
Metapopulation, the New York Mountains
have been removed from the inventory;
although important as a transitional range,
the New York Mountains are poor habitat
and may never have supported a viable
population. We have also designated Club
Peak as a population separate from Old Dad
Peak; although movement by males and
females with resultant gene flow occurs
between these 2 areas, enough geographic
and genetic separation exists (Epps 2005)
that they probably have independent
demographic trajectories.
In the Sierra Nevada, a small
population of bighorn sheep recently was
discovered at Bubbs Creek on the west side
of the range (SNBSRP 2004), and may be a
recent recolonization. We have also
reclassified the Sawmill Canyon population
as distinct from the Mount Baxter
population, a demographic separation
known since the 1970s (Wehausen 1979,
1996). Anecdotal accounts have suggested
that bighorn sheep may be appearing again
in northeastern California, although this
population is not yet regarded as
reestablished; at least 1 young male was

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47
26
2004 Desert
Bighorn Sheep
Hunt Zones
California
Department of
Fish and Game
Clark/Kingston
Mountain Ranges
(Zone 3)
Marble/Clipper
Mountains (Zone 1)
Orocopia Mountains (Zone 4)
Kelso Peak/Old Dad
Mountain (Zone 2)
San Gorgonio
Wilderness (Zone 5) Sheephole
Mountains (Zone 6)
White Mountains
(Proposed, Zone 7)
Figure 2. Locations of 2004 desert bighorn sheep hunt zones in California.
removed from the Warner Mountains after it
was observed with a band of domestic
sheep. We used this population inventory to
examine major population trends since 1995.
Although the range of population estimates
between 1995 and 2004 overlap in all
categories and make definitive conclusions
difficult, bighorn sheep numbers in
California appear to show an upward trend.
The distribution of populations by
metapopulation and size class (Table 2)
showed an increase in the number of
populations in the 25–50 and 51–100 size
classes, as well as a strong increase in the
number of large populations of 201–300; all
other size categories declined in number. As
a result, the median total population estimate
has increased by 844 animals since 1995
(Table 3).
Regional totals (Table 4) suggest a
strong upward trend for bighorn sheep in the
Peninsular Ranges. Estimated numbers of
bighorn sheep in the Sierra Nevada
(SNBSRP 2004) also suggest a strong
increase since 1995; this reflects the
recovery of Sierra Nevada bighorn from a
low of about 100 individuals that occurred
in 1995 (Wehausen 1996). Overall numbers
of desert bighorn sheep (excluding
Peninsular populations) likewise appear to
have increased slightly, and the total number
of viable populations (excluding
reclassifications) has increased during this
time period. Many areas of current or
former use by populations of bighorn sheep
have not been investigated in more than a

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47 27
decade (Table 1). Those areas should be re-
visited to determine whether changes in
status have occurred.
Table 3. Bighorn sheep population estimates by
metapopulation (2004). Low, median, and high
totals result from summing the low, mid, and
high values of each size class.
Metapopulation Low Median High
Peninsular Ranges 554 731 900
San Gabriel 201 251 300
Western Transverse
Range 25 38 50
Sonoran 228 316 400
South Mojave 738 1076 1396
Central Mojave 428 593 750
Central North
Mojave 178 266 350
North Mojave 610 872 1122
Very Southern
Sierra 0 0 0
Southern Sierra
Nevada 180 292 398
Central Sierra
Nevada 25 38 50
Northeastern
California 0 0 0
Total 3167 4473 5716
1995 Total (Torres
et al. 1996) 2541 3629 4712
Net Change Since
1995 +626 +844 +1004
Table 4. Bighorn sheep population estimates by
geographical region (2004). 1995 estimates
(calculated from or reported in Torres et al.
1996) are indicated in parentheses.
Region Low Median High
Peninsula 554 (303) 731 (404) 900 (500)
Sierra 205 (101) 330 (163) 448 (224)
Other 2408 (2137) 3412 (3061) 4368 (3988)
Total 3167 (2541) 4473 (3628) 5716 (4712)
Research
The past 10 years have been marked
by numerous and extensive research projects
by CDFG, universities, and other agencies
that have further advanced our
understanding of bighorn sheep taxonomy,
demography, distribution, ecology,
behavior, and metapopulation dynamics in
California. CDFG has continued to conduct
annual surveys in the hunt zones (Figure 2)
and occasionally other populations, and has
captured and radiocollared bighorn in the
Cushenbury, Old Dad Peak, Old Woman
Mountains, Iron Mountains, Queen
Mountains, East Chocolate Mountains,
Orocopia Mountains, South Bristol
Mountains, Marble Mountains, Panamint
Mountains, Eagle Crags, White Mountains,
San Gabriel Mountains, Vallecito
Mountains, Carrizo Mountains, South San
Ysidro Mountains, North San Ysidro
Mountains, Coyote Canyon, East Santa Rosa
Mountains, West Santa Rosa Mountains,
San Jacinto Mountains, Lee Vining,
Wheeler Ridge, Sawmill Canyon, Mount
Baxter, and Mount Langley populations
during 1995–2004.
A substantial number of publications
concerning bighorn sheep in California was
produced during 1995–2005. While not an
exhaustive list, we present here a brief
bibliography, organized loosely by topic
(some papers are included in more than one
topic area); we include material in the
professional literature in this list, as well as
unpublished theses and dissertations. Papers
on habitat management, use or selection for
bighorn sheep in California include Andrew
et al. (1997a; 1999; 2001), Bleich et al.
(1997), Divine (1998), Divine et al. (2000),
Lesicka and Hervert (1995), Longshore and
Douglas (1995), Oehler (1999), Oehler et al.
(2003), Rubin et al. (2002b), Turner et al.
(2004), and Rechel (2003). Contributions
relevant to metapopulation processes include
Bleich et al. (1996), Epps (2004; 2005),
Epps et al. (2004), and Wehausen (1999).

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47
28
The topic of predation and bighorn sheep
was examined by Bleich (1996; 1999a),
Bleich et al. (2004), Boyce et al. (1996b),
Ernest et al. (2002), Hayes et al. (2000),
Schaefer et al. (2000), and Wehausen
(1996). Bighorn sheep demography was also
an important area of research (Andrew et al.
1997b; Coonan 1995; DeForge et al. 1995;
DeForge et al. 1997; Douglas and
Longshore 1995; Holl et al. 2004;
Ostermann et al. 2001; Rubin et al. 1998;
Rubin et al. 2002a; Schaefer et al. 2000;
Wehausen 2005). Considerable research was
published on morphometrics, taxonomy, and
the rapidly-growing field of genetics (Boyce
et al. 1996a; Boyce et al. 1999; Epps 2004,
2005; Gutierrez-Espeleta et al. 1998; Jessup
and Ramey II 1995; Ramey II 1995, 1999;
Wehausen and Ramey II 2000; Wehausen et
al. 2004; Wehausen et al. 2005). Research
on life history and behavior (Rubin 2000;
Rubin et al. 2000; Wehausen 2005) as well
as disease and physiology (Drew et al. 2001;
Jessup et al. 1995; Singer et al. 1997; Swift
et al. 2000) also was published, as was
information evaluating translocation
techniques (Thompson et al. 2001) and
evaluations (Ostermann et al. 2001).
Habitat Improvements
Water development and maintenance
projects long have been part of the CDFG
strategy for maintaining and enhancing
populations of bighorn sheep (Bleich et al.
2005). During the last decade, however, the
pace of development projects slowed
considerably, largely as a result of passage
of the California Desert Protection Act. This
act created numerous wilderness areas and
established the Mojave National Preserve
and, thereby, complicated efforts to continue
water development projects (Bleich 1999b).
Despite the near absence of habitat
improvement projects during the last decade,
maintenance of existing development has
continued, largely by volunteer
organizations such as the Society for the
Conservation of Bighorn Sheep and Desert
Wildlife Unlimited. Over the past decade, an
average of about five major volunteer
projects have occurred each year, and have
included activities such as replacement of
water storage tanks, tamarisk removal, and
otherwise routine maintenance including
replacement of damaged or corroded
fittings. Additionally, volunteers have
established seven stations that monitor
availability of water at anthropogenic
catchments and transmit information via
satellite link (Hill and Bleich 1999); those
stations have provided invaluable
information that has been useful in
scheduling inspections or needed repairs.
Harvest (1996–2004)
Hunting of bighorn sheep in
California began in 1987; hence, it is a
relatively new phenomenon after >100 years
of total protection (Wehausen et al.
1987). Since the onset of the hunting
program, 7 hunt zones have been established
and, pending final approval by the
California Fish and Game Commission, an
eighth zone is proposed to open in 2005
(Figure 2). Since 1996, several changes have
affected hunting of bighorn sheep in
California. Because of severe drought,
numbers of sheep in the Orocopia
Mountains have declined substantially,
necessitating that harvests in that area be
restricted severely. A similar downward
trend in the East Chocolate Mountains
resulted in the closure of that zone, and
harvest proposals for the Clark and Kingston
mountains have been modified downward
during recent seasons. Regulations in

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47 29
California restrict the harvest of bighorn
sheep to adult males having approximately a
¾ horn curl.
Since 1996, hunter opportunity has
been approximately constant, and hunter
success in California remains in excess of
90% (Table 5); slight changes in hunter
opportunity on an annual basis reflect the
conservative nature of the harvest program,
as well as annual adjustments based on
current survey results. In general, revenue
from fund-raising auction tags has fallen off
slightly since 1996 (Table 5).
Problems-Opportunities
Listing of bighorn sheep in the Sierra
Nevada and in the Peninsular Ranges as
endangered by the federal government
resulted in some unanticipated opportunities.
In the Sierra Nevada, the California
Legislature made funding available to
support a substantial recovery program that
includes 3 full-time CDFG personnel and 3
full-time contract personnel; the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) delegated
responsibility for implementing the recovery
program to CDFG (Bleich 2001a). To date,
results have been encouraging, and the
population of bighorn sheep in that range
has increased from about 100 individuals to
about 300 animals since 1999 (Table 4,
SNBSRP 2004). Currently, the biggest
obstacle with which the recovery effort is
faced is the potential for disease
transmission from domestic sheep, which
are grazed on allotments proximate to ranges
occupied by Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep. A
draft recovery plan was circulated for public
review during 2003; efforts to update the
plan with new information and to finalize it
are continuing. In the Peninsular Ranges,
recent population surveys indicate a
continuing upward population trend (Table
4). New information from ongoing telemetry
investigations has resulted in the redefinition
of subpopulations of bighorn sheep
inhabiting the Peninsular Ranges. Recovery
efforts are being carried out cooperatively
by the USFWS, CDFG, University of
California, and several nongovernmental
organizations.
Bighorn sheep inhabiting the San
Gabriel Mountains once represented the
largest population of that species in
California (Torres et al. 1994). A substantial
population decline, attributed in part to
changes in habitat associated with fire
suppression and predation by mountain lions
(Holl et al. 2004) continued during the late
1990s. As a result of that continuing decline,
CDFG, the United States Forest Service, and
Los Angeles County Fish and Game
Commission initiated a cooperative effort to
halt the decline and, eventually, restore
bighorn sheep to higher population levels in
the San Gabriel Mountains. Lack of funds
continues to plague the project, but federal
monies made available as the result of the
devastating fires that burned throughout that
range in 2003 offer some promise that the
restoration effort will be successful.
During 2003, CDFG initiated an
effort to complete plans for bighorn sheep
conservation that were based on the premise
that bighorn sheep existed in a
metapopulation structure. Recent research
(Epps 2004, 2005) has evaluated
metapopulation structure and dynamics for
bighorn sheep in California, and a CDFG
project is underway to update the GIS map
of bighorn sheep habitat in California. A
draft plan for the Sonoran Desert
Metapopulation was completed on schedule,
but has not yet been finalized. The
budgetary crisis with which the State of
California has been faced for the last several
years has resulted in the loss of numerous

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47
30
Table 5. Summary of Nelson (desert bighorn) sheep tag allocations, harvest, applications, and revenue
from 1987–2004 in California.
Year Tags
Allocated Tags
Filled Total
Applicants Fundraising
Tag Revenue Drawing Tag
License Fees Totals
1987 9 9 4,066 $70,000.00 $21,930.00 $91,930.00
1988 9 7 3,385 $59,000.00 $18,525.00 $77,525.00
1989 9 9 3,185 $40,000.00 $17,525.00 $57,525.00
1990 6 6 2,591 $37,000.00 $13,955.00 $50,955.00
1991 8 7 2,834 $42,000.00 $15,570.00 $57,570.00
1992 12 12 3,798 $61,000.00 $22,464.50 $83,464.50
1993 11 9 4,318 $100,000.00 $25,082.00 $125,082.00
1994 14 10 4,692 $162,000.00 $28,422.00 $190,422.00
1995 16 14 4,217 $187,000.00 $26,312.00 $213,312.00
1996 14 10 4,493 $193,500.00 $28,702.75 $222,202.75
1997 11 11 3,925 $84,000.00 $26,836.25 $110,836.25
1998 10 9 4,853 $150,000.00 $32,588.00 $182,588.00
1999 11 11 5,058 $95,000.00 $34,120.00 $129,120.00
2000 10 10 5,445 $76,000.00 $36,288.00 $112,288.00
2001 14 12 5,754 $148,000.00 $40,539.00 $188,539.00
2002 14 12 7,147 $138,000.00 $51,485.25 $189,485.25
2003 10 10 7,697 $51,691.00 $54,679.75 $106,370.50
2004 13 1227,285 $58,884.501$40,536.001$99,420.501
Total1201 180 84,743 $1,753,075.50 $535,550.50 $2,288,635.75
1 2004 totals have not been finalized
2 As of January 31, 2004; 2004–2005 season has not ended
personnel in CDFG, and the reassignment of
others to unanticipated tasks. Although the
long-term benefits of conservation planning
on a metapopulation basis are clear (Bleich
et al. 1996), timely completion of that effort
will be a function of the priority in which it
is viewed by the CDFG administration.
In 1994, Congress passed the
California Desert Protection Act (CDPA),
which established numerous wilderness
areas throughout the deserts of California,
and transferred management authority for
much of the eastern Mojave Desert from the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the
National Park Service (NPS, Bleich and
Pauli 1999). That legislation has been
especially problematic for issues of bighorn
sheep conservation because the majority of
ranges occupied by bighorn sheep were
designated as wilderness; further, differing
agency management policies and
philosophical differences have complicated
conservation activities within areas recently
transferred to NPS (Bleich 1999b). A
Memorandum of Agreement between CDFG
and BLM has facilitated access to
wilderness areas by CDFG for conservation
activities; such an agreement has not yet
been achieved with NPS despite the specific
acknowledgment of CDFG management

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47 31
authority in the newly designated Mojave
National Preserve (MNP, Bleich 2001b). As
a result, wildlife conservation activities
proposed by CDFG to occur in the MNP
remain contentious.
During 1999, the California
Legislature passed a bill that provided
CDFG the authority to remove mountain
lions if it was determined that those
predators were "…an imminent threat to the
survival of any threatened, endangered,
candidate, or fully protected sheep species."
That legislation provided CDFG with
management options that had been usurped
with the passage of a ballot initiative in
1990, which designated mountain lions as a
specially protected mammal. With the
exception of individual animals subject to
hunter harvest, all bighorn sheep in
California are fully protected and, thereby,
subject to the initiative passed in 1999.
As noted previously, passage of the
CDPA complicated many conservation
activities proposed by CDFG throughout the
majority of the range of bighorn sheep in
California. Further, large-scale plans, such
as those prepared by BLM for the Northern
and Eastern Colorado Desert that provided
authority for implementation of habitat
improvement and maintenance projects,
have been successfully challenged in court.
In the absence of regular maintenance
activities, past efforts to enhance conditions
for bighorn sheep will be negated. Efforts to
enhance habitat and to translocate bighorn
sheep have been compromised by court
challenges, thereby affecting well-intended
proposals to benefit that species. Without
recognition that well-intentioned but
conflicting legislation is problematic for
wildlife conservation, management on
behalf of bighorn sheep and wildlife in
general will become even more difficult
(Bleich 1999b, 2005).
Several apparent outbreaks of
disease occurred in California in the past
decade. Those events occurred in the Old
Woman Mountains (San Bernardino
County) and in the northern Panamint Range
(Inyo County), and subsequently were
investigated by CDFG. Mortality rates, as
determined from animals that were captured
for sampling and then telemetered, were not
remarkable; hence, the demographic
consequences of those events appeared to be
minimal, but warrant further investigation.
In 1995, in excess of 40 bighorn sheep died
as a result of probable botulism poisoning at
Old Dad Peak (San Bernardino County)
(Swift et al. 2000). The immediate
demographic consequences of that event
were substantial, but the population has
since compensated for those losses and
remains among the largest in California
(Table 1).
The majority of funding for
conservation activities affecting bighorn
sheep in California originates with the sale
of fund-raising auction tags. Individual tags
have brought as much as $150,000 during
previous years (Table 5, Pauli 2002) but, in
general, revenues from the sale of fund-
raising tags have been declining. This may
be a function, in part, of poor economic
times over the past several years, but it also
reflects the availability of only a single
fund-raising tag since 2002. In the absence
of additional financial support, CDFG
bighorn sheep management activities likely
will remain constrained by funds generated
through the sale of bighorn sheep hunting
permits. During 2005, a new hunt has been
proposed for the White Mountains; if that
proposal is approved by the California Fish
and Game Commission, a second fund-
raising tag may yield a substantial increase
in funds available for bighorn sheep
management in the coming year.

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47
32
Acknowledgments: We thank Terry
Anderson, Randy Botta, Kevin Brennan,
Bob Campbell, Jim Davis, Jim DeForge,
Carlos Gallinger, Scott Hetzler, Gerald
Mulcahy, Ray Osgood, S. P. Parker, Andy
Pauli, Esther Rubin, Tom Stephenson, Glenn
Sudmeier, Doug Updike, and the employees
of the Viceroy Mine at Hart Peak, for their
observations on bighorn sheep populations
in California or assistance with this report.
We thank the many members of The Society
for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep and
Desert Wildlife Unlimited for their
continuing efforts on behalf of bighorn
sheep conservation in California. This is a
contribution from the CDFG Bighorn Sheep
Conservation Program, the CDFG Resource
Assessment Program, and is Professional
Paper 047 from the Eastern Sierra Center for
Applied Population Ecology.
Literature Cited
ANDREW, N., L. LESICKA, AND V. C. BLEICH. 1997a.
An improved fence design to protect water
sources for native ungulates. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 25:823–825.
ANDREW, N. G., V. C. BLEICH, P. V. AUGUST, AND S.
G. TORRES. 1997b. Demography of
mountain sheep in the East Chocolate
Mountains, California. California Fish and
Game 83:68–77.
ANDREW, N. G., V. C. BLEICH, AND P. V. AUGUST.
1999. Habitat selection by mountain sheep
in the Sonoran desert: implications for
conservation in the Unites States and
Mexico. California Wildlife Conservation
Bulletin 12:1-30.
ANDREW, N. G., V. C. BLEICH, A. D. MORRISON, L.
M. LESICKA, AND P. COOLEY. 2001. Wildlife
mortalities associated with artificial water
sources in the Sonoran Desert. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 29:275–280.
BLEICH, V. C. 1996. Interactions between coyotes
(Canis latrans) and mountain sheep (Ovis
canadensis). Southwestern Naturalist 41:81–
82.
BLEICH, V. C., J. D. WEHAUSEN, R. R. RAMEY, AND J.
L. RECHEL. 1996. Metapopulation theory
and mountain sheep: implications for
conservation. Pages 353–373 in D. R.
McCullough, editor. Metapopulations and
Wildlife Conservation. Island Press, Covelo.
BLEICH, V. C., R. T. BOWYER, AND J. D. WEHAUSEN.
1997. Sexual segregation in mountain sheep:
Resources or predation? Wildlife
Monographs:134:1–50.
BLEICH, V. C. 1999a. Mountain sheep and coyotes:
Patterns of predator evasion in a mountain
ungulate. Journal of Mammalogy 80:283–
289.
BLEICH, V. C. 1999b. Wildlife conservation and
wilderness management: uncommon
objectives and conflicting philosophies.
North American Wild Sheep Conference
Proceedings 2:195–205.
BLEICH, V. C., AND A. M. PAULI. 1999. Distribution
and intensity of hunting and trapping
activity in the East Mojave National Scenic
Area, California. California Fish and Game
85:148–160.
BLEICH, V. C. 2001a. Restoring bighorn sheep to the
Sierra Nevada: a new challenge for wildlife
biologists. Wild Sheep 24:47–50, 52.
BLEICH, V. C. 2001b. On wildlife management in
national monuments. The Wildlifer 306:59.
BLEICH, V. C., E. F. CASSIRER, L. E. OLDENBURG, V.
L. COGGINS, AND D. L. HUNTER. 2004.
Predation by a golden eagle, Aquila
chrysaetos, on a juvenile mountain sheep,
Ovis canadensis. California Fish and Game
90:91–93.
BLEICH, V. C. 2005. In my opinion: politics,
promises, and illogical legislation confound
wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 33:in press.
BLEICH, V. C., J. G. KIE, T. R. STEPHENSON, M. W.
OEHLER SR., AND A. L. MEDINA. 2005.
Managing rangelands for wildlife. Pages
873–897 in C. E. Braun, editor. The wildlife
techniques manual. The Wildlife Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
BOYCE, W. M., P. W. HEDRICK, N. E. MUGGLI-
COCKETT, S. KALINOWSKI, M. C. T.
PENEDO, AND R. R. RAMEY II. 1996a.
Genetic variation of major
histocompatibility complex and
microsatellite loci: a comparison for bighorn
sheep. Genetics 145:421–433.
BOYCE, W. M., E. S. RUBIN, C. HAYES, S. G. TORRES,
AND M. C. JORGENSEN. 1996b. Mountain
lion predation on bighorn sheep in the

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47 33
Peninsular Ranges of California. Biennial
Symposium of the Northern Wild Sheep and
Goat Council 10:12.
BOYCE, W. M., R. R. RAMEY II, T. C. RODWELL, E. S.
RUBIN, AND R. S. SINGER. 1999. Population
subdivision among desert bighorn sheep
(Ovis canadensis) revealed by mitochondrial
DNA analysis. Molecular Ecology 8:99–
106.
COONAN, T. J. 1995. Weather, nutritional status, and
recruitment of desert bighorn sheep in Death
Valley, California. Desert Bighorn Council
Transactions 39:68–76.
DEFORGE, J. R., E. M. BARRETT, S. D. OSTERMANN,
M. C. JORGENSEN, AND S. G. TORRES. 1995.
Population dynamics of peninsular bighorn
sheep in the Santa Rosa Mountains,
California, 1983–1994. Desert Bighorn
Council Transactions 39:50–67.
DEFORGE, J. R., S. D. OSTERMANN, C. W. WILLMOTT,
K. B. BRENNAN, AND S. G. TORRES. 1997.
The ecology of peninsular bighorn sheep in
the San Jacinto Mountains, California.
Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 41:8–
25.
DIVINE, D. D. 1998. Habitat patch dynamics of desert
bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni in
the eastern Mojave Desert. University of
Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada. Ph.D
dissertation.
DIVINE, D. D., D. W. EBERT, AND C. L. DOUGLAS.
2000. Examining desert bighorn habitat
using 30-m and 100-m elevation data.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:986–992.
DOUGLAS, C. L., AND K. LONGSHORE. 1995. Costs
and effectiveness of methods used for
population estimates of bighorn sheep in
Death Valley National Park. Desert Bighorn
Council Transactions 39:1–9.
DREW, M. L., V. C. BLEICH, S. G. TORRES, AND R. G.
SASSER. 2001. Early pregnancy detection in
mountain sheep using a pregnancy-specific
protein B assay. Wildlife Society Bulletin
29:1182–1185.
EPPS, C. W. 2004. Population processes in a changing
climate: extinction, dispersal, and
metapopulation dynamics of desert bighorn
sheep in California. University of California,
Berkeley, California. Ph.D. dissertation.
EPPS, C. W., D. R. MCCULLOUGH, J. D. WEHAUSEN,
V. C. BLEICH, AND J. L. RECHEL. 2004.
Effects of climate change on population
persistence of desert-dwelling mountain
sheep in California. Conservation Biology
18:102–113.
EPPS, C. W. 2005. Using genetic analyses to describe
and infer recent colonizations by desert
bighorn sheep. Proceedings of the Sweeney
Granite Mountains 25th Anniversary
Symposium:in press.
ERNEST, H. B., E. S. RUBIN, AND W. M. BOYCE. 2002.
Fecal DNA analysis and risk assessment of
mountain lion predation of bighorn sheep.
Journal of Wildlife Management 66:75–85.
GUTIERREZ-ESPELETA, G. A., S. T. KALINOWSKI, W.
M. BOYCE, AND P. W. HEDRICK. 1998.
Genetic variation in desert bighorn sheep.
Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 42:1–
10.
HAYES, C. L., E. S. RUBIN, M. C. JORGENSEN, R. A.
BOTTA, AND W. M. BOYCE. 2000. Mountain
lion predation of bighorn sheep in the
Peninsular Ranges, California. Journal of
Wildlife Management 64:954–959.
HILL, S. D., AND V. C. BLEICH. 1999. Monitoring
wildlife water sources using low Earth
orbiting satellites (LEOS). Wildlife Society
Bulletin 27:25–27.
HOLL, S. A., V. C. BLEICH, AND S. G. TORRES. 2004.
Population dynamics of bighorn sheep in the
San Gabriel Mountains, California, 1967–
2002. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:412–426.
JESSUP, D. A., W. M. BOYCE, AND S. G. TORRES.
1995. Bighorn sheep health management in
California: a fifteen year retrospective. Proc.
Joint Conference AAZV/WDA/AAWV
1995:56–67.
JESSUP, D. A., AND R. R. RAMEY II. 1995. Genetic
variation of bighorn sheep as measured by
blood protein electrophoresis. Desert
Bighorn Council Transactions 39:17–25.
LESICKA, L. M., AND J. J. HERVERT. 1995. Low
maintenance water development for arid
environments: concepts, material and
techniques. Pages 52–57 in D. P. Young, R.
Vinzant, and M. D. Strickland, editors.
Wildlife water development. Water for
Wildlife Foundation, Lander, Wyoming.
LONGSHORE, K., AND C. L. DOUGLAS. 1995. Home
ranges of desert bighorn sheep inhabiting the
Black Mountains, Death Valley National
Park, California. Desert Bighorn Council
Transactions 39:26–35.
OEHLER, M. W. 1999. Ecology of mountain sheep:
effects of mining and precipitation.

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47
34
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska.
M.S. thesis.
OEHLER, M. W., R. T. BOWYER, AND V. C. BLEICH.
2003. Home ranges of female mountain
sheep, Ovis canadensis nelsoni: effects of
precipitation in a desert ecosystem.
Mammalia 67:385–401.
OSTERMANN, S. D., J. R. DEFORGE, AND W. D. EDGE.
2001. Captive breeding and reintroduction
evaluation criteria: a case study of
Peninsular bighorn sheep. Conservation
Biology 15:749–760.
PAULI, A. M. 2002. Bighorn sheep hunting: win-win
for hunters, species. Tracks Summer
2002:17.
RAMEY II, R. R. 1995. Mitochondrial DNA variation,
population structure, and evolution of
mountain sheep in the southwestern United
States and Mexico. Molecular Ecology
4:429–439.
RAMEY II, R. R. 1999. New perspectives on the
evolutionary origins, historic
phylogeography, and population structure of
North American mountain sheep.
Transactions of the North American Wild
Sheep Conference 2:9–20.
RECHEL, J. L. 2003. Using neighborhood effects and
friction surfaces to model spatial
distributions and movement areas:
applications to desert-dwelling mountain
sheep (Ovis canadensis). University of
California, Riverside, Riverside, California.
Ph.D dissertation.
RUBIN, E. S., W. M. BOYCE, M. C. JORGENSEN, S. G.
TORRES, C. L. HAYES, C. S. O'BRIEN, AND D.
A. JESSUP. 1998. Distribution and
abundance of bighorn sheep in the
Peninsular Ranges, California. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 26:539–551.
RUBIN, E. S. 2000. The ecology of desert bighorn
sheep (Ovis canadensis) in the peninsular
ranges of California. University of
California-Davis, Davis, California. Ph.D.
Dissertation.
RUBIN, E. S., W. M. BOYCE, AND V. C. BLEICH. 2000.
Reproductive strategies of desert bighorn
sheep. Journal of Mammalogy 81:769–786.
RUBIN, E. S., W. M. BOYCE, AND E. P. CASWELL-
CHEN. 2002a. Modeling demographic
processes in an endangered population of
bighorn sheep. Journal of Wildlife
Management 66:796–810.
RUBIN, E. S., W. M. BOYCE, C. J. STERMER, AND S. G.
TORRES. 2002b. Bighorn habitat use and
selection near an urban environment.
Biological Conservation 104:251–263.
SCHAEFER, R. J., S. G. TORRES, AND V. C. BLEICH.
2000. Survivorship and cause-specific
mortality in sympatric populations of
mountain sheep and mule deer. California
Fish and Game 86:127–135.
SINGER, R. S., D. A. JESSUP, I. A. GARDNER, AND W.
M. BOYCE. 1997. Pathogen exposure
patterns among sympatric populations of
bighorn sheep, mule deer, and cattle. Journal
of Wildlife Diseases 33:377–382.
SNBSRP. 2004. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep
progress report 2003. Outdoor California
65:4–17.
SWIFT, P., J. D. WEHAUSEN, H. B. ERNEST, R. S.
SINGER, A. PAULI, H. KINDE, T. E. ROCKE,
AND V. C. BLEICH. 2000. Desert bighorn
sheep mortality due to presumptive type C
botulism in California. Journal of Wildlife
Diseases 36:184–189.
THOMPSON, J. R., V. C. BLEICH, S. G. TORRES, AND
G. P. MULCAHY. 2001. Translocation
techniques for mountain sheep: does the
method matter? Southwestern Naturalist
46:87–93.
TORRES, S. G., V. C. BLEICH, AND J. D. WEHAUSEN.
1994. Status of bighorn sheep in California,
1993. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions
38:17–28.
TORRES, S. G., V. C. BLEICH, AND J. D. WEHAUSEN.
1996. Status of bighorn sheep in California-
1995. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions
40:27–34.
TURNER, J. C., C. L. DOUGLAS, C. R. HALLAM, P. R.
KRAUSMAN, AND R. R. RAMEY. 2004.
Determination of critical habitat for the
endangered Nelson's bighorn sheep in
southern California. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 32:427–448.
WEAVER, R. A. 1989. Status of bighorn sheep in
California – 1989. The Sheepherder January
1989:20–23.
WEHAUSEN, J. D. 1979. Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep:
an analysis of management alternatives.
Cooperative Administrative Report, Inyo
National Forest and Sequoia, Kings Canyon
and Yosemite National Parks.
WEHAUSEN, J. D., V. C. BLEICH, AND R. A. WEAVER.
1987. Mountain sheep in California: a
historical perspective on 108 years of full

2003 DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS: VOLUME 47 35
protection. Western Section Wildlife Society
Transactions 23:65–74.
WEHAUSEN, J. D., AND R. R. RAMEY II. 1993. A
morphometric reevaluation of the Peninsular
bighorn subspecies. Desert Bighorn Council
Transactions 37:1–10.
WEHAUSEN, J. D. 1996. Effects of mountain lion
predation on bighorn sheep in the Sierra
Nevada and Granite Mountains of
California. Wildlife Society Bulletin
24:471–479.
WEHAUSEN, J. D. 1999. Rapid extinction of mountain
sheep populations revisited. Conservation
Biology 13:378–384.
WEHAUSEN, J. D., AND R. R. RAMEY II. 2000. Cranial
morphometric and evolutionary
relationships in the northern range of Ovis
canadensis. Journal of Mammalogy 81:145–
161.
WEHAUSEN, J. D., R. R. RAMEY, AND C. W. EPPS.
2004. Experiments in DNA extraction and
PCR amplification from bighorn sheep
feces: the importance of DNA extraction
method. Journal of Heredity 95:503–509.
WEHAUSEN, J. D. 2005. Nutrient predictability,
birthing seasons, and lamb recruitment for
desert bighorn sheep. Proceedings of the
Sweeney Granite Mountains 25th
Anniversary Symposium.
WEHAUSEN, J. D., V. C. BLEICH, AND R. R. RAMEY II.
2005. Correct nomenclature for Sierra
Nevada bighorn sheep. California Fish and
Game 91: In press.