(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North American fauna"

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 06317 644 8 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: 
A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 




if* f 

RY56 




IC LIBRARY 
: NMF.NT DOCUMENTS UEPARTMCNT 



L»~ — 



3 1 2000 



00 



-NUMBER 72 



UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 

This publication series includes monographs and other reports of scientific in- 
vestigations relating to birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, for professional 
readers. It is a continuation by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the series begun in 
1889 by the Division of Ornithology and Mammalogy (Department of Agriculture) 
and continued by succeeding bureaus— Biological Survey and the Bureau of Sport 
Fisheries and Wildlife. The Service distributes these reports to official agencies, to li- 
braries, and to researchers in fields related to the Service's work; additional copies 
may usually be purchased from the Division of Public Documents, U.S. Government 
Printing Office. 

Reports in NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA since 1950 are as follows (all sale stock is 
exhausted): 



Raccoons of North and Middle America, by Edward A. Goldman. 1950. 153 pp. 

Fauna of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula, by Olaus J. Murie; In- 
vertebrates and Fishes Collected in the Aleutians, 1936-38, by Victor B. 
Scheffer. 1959.406 pp. 

Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia, by Robert E. Stewart and 
Chandler S. Robbins. 1958. 401 pp. 

The Trumpeter Swan; Its history, habits, and population in the United States, by 
Winston E. Banko. 1960. 214 pp. 

Pelage and Surface Topography of the Northern Fur Seal, by Victor B. Scheffer. 
1961.206 pp. 

Seven New White-winged Doves from Mexico, Central America, and Southwest- 
ern United States, by George B. Saunders. 1968. 30 pp. 

66. Mammals of Maryland, by John L. Paradiso. 1969. 193 pp. 

67. Natural History of the King Rail, by Brooke Meanley, 1969. 108 pp. 

68. The Sea Otter in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, by Karl W. Kenyon. 1970. 352 pp. 

69. Natural History of the Swainson's Warbler. 1971. 90 pp. 

70. The Distribution and Occurence of the Birds of Jackson County, Oregon, and Sur- 

rounding Areas, by M. Ralph Browning. 1975. 69 pp. 

71. The Screech Owl: Its Life History and Population Ecology in Northern Ohio, by 

L. F. VanCamp and C. J. Henny. 1975. 65 pp. 



60. 
61. 



62 



63. 



64. 



65 



Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Wilbur, Sanford R. 
The California condor, 1966-76. 



(North American fauna; no. 72) 
Includes bibliographical references. 
1. California condor. I. Title. II. Series. 
QL155.A4 no. 72 [QL696.F33] 



596'.0097s [598.91] 77-18928 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: 
A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 



by Sanford R. Wilbur 




**D wiU*-^ 



UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

North American Fauna, Number 72 



Washington, D.C. • 1978 



Contents 

Page 

Abstract 1 

Study Methods 2 

Species Characteristics 4 

California Condor Habitat 4 

Distribution 7 

General Distribution, 1966-76 .7 

Subpopulations of California Condor 9 

Changes in Distribution, 1966-76 11 

Changes in Distribution, 1935-65 11 

Distribution, Before 1935 12 

Numbers 14 

Population Size, 1966-76 14 

Changes in Condor Numbers, 1920-65 15 

Condor Numbers, Before 1920 15 

—«=-Past Causes for Condor Decline 18 

Indian ceremonial use 18 

Killing for feathers 19 

Capturing for sport 19 

Wanton shooting 20 

Scientific and hobby collecting 20 

Poisoning 21 

Recent Causes of Condor Decline 22 

Production 22 

Production, 1966-76 22 

Comparisons with Production Before 1966 23 

Food Supply 24 

Foods Eaten 25 

Amount of Food Required 26 

Required Location of Food 27 

Current Food Situation 27 

Coast Range condors 27 

Sespe-Sierra breeding population 29 

Sespe-Sierra nonbreeding condors 31 

Possible Effects of Food Shortage 31 

Failure to breed 32 

Deferral of breeding and intermittent breeding 33 

Unsuccessful breeding efforts 34 

Disturbance 34 

Flying condors 35 

Roosting birds 35 

Feeding birds 37 

Nesting condors 37 

Other Factors Possibly Affecting Productivity 39 

Weather and Climate 39 

Minimum Population Density 39 

Senescent Adults 40 

Insufficient Nest Sites 40 

Pesticides and Air Pollution 41 

Body residues 41 

Eggshell changes 42 



Contents — Continued 

Page 

Preservation 43 

"^The California Condor Recovery Plan 43 

Nesting requirements 44 

Roosting and feeding 45 

Protection from mortality 45 

New nesting areas 45 

Captive propagation 46 

Can the Condor Be Saved? 47 

Acknowledgments 48 

References 49 

Appendix I: Records of Condor Occurrence, 1966-1976 57 

Appendix II: Removals from the California Condor 

Population 71 

Appendix III: Unpublished Material on the 

California Condor 89 

Appendix IV: Significant Events in California 

Condor History 91 

Appendix V: An Annotated List of California Condor 

Literature 95 



Illustrations 

Figure Page 

Frontispiece. California condors in Sespe Condor Sanctuary iv 

( 1 Locations of frequent observation points of California 

condor 3 

2 Adult and immature condor in spread-wing posture, 

a behavior pattern shared with the storks 5 

3 Principal range of the California condor, 

^ 1966-1976 6 

(4)Seasonal and geographical distribution of 

California condor subpopulations in relation to 

remaining nesting areas 10 

5 California condors and ravens gathered at mule 

deer carcass 25 

6 Typical Coast Range feeding habitat for 

California condors 28 

7 Hopper Canyon, Sespe Condor Sanctuary, an 

important condor nesting and roosting area 28 

8 Feeding habitat used by Sespe-Sierra 

nonbreeding condors 31 

9 Oil field development at the edge of the Sespe 

Condor Sanctuary. Condors formerly roosted along 

the ridge immediately behind the pumps 36 



The California Condor, 1966-76: 
A Look at its Past and Future 



by 

Sanford R. Wilbur 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 

Laurel, Maryland 20811 



Abstract 

The California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) was studied on about 
900 field days between 1966 and 1976. In addition, some 1,000 items of lit- 
erature, specimen records from 56 museums, and 3,500 reports of condor 
sitings by cooperators were analyzed. Distribution does not appear to 
have changed significantly since the 1930's, although there are some areas 
within the species' range that have become unusable. Two subpopulations 
of condors exist, one occupying the Coast Range Mountains, and the other 
found in the Transverse Ranges, Tehachapi Mountains, and Sierra 
Nevadas. There are well-defined seasonal movements within each sub- 
population area. The surviving, wild population was estimated to be 45 
condors in 1976, a decline of about 20% since 1965 and probably over 50% 
since 1940. No reliable population estimates are available before the 
1940's, but it appears that a major decline occurred between 1880 and 
1920. Shooting and specimen collecting were the primary causes of the 
early decline, and shooting continued as a major problem into the 1960's. 
Recent declines are a result of inadequate production; annual surveys indi- 
cate that only 16 young have been produced since 1968. Causes of low pro- 
duction are unknown but inadequate food supply, environmental contami- 
nants, and disturbance from air traffic and petroleum extraction are impli- 
cated. A recovery plan for the condor is in operation; steps have been 
taken to supplement food supplies, preserve nesting and roosting habitat, 
and protect surviving birds from man-caused mortality or disturbance. 
The condor's prospects of recovery in its natural habitat seem bleak; a 
captive propagation program is proposed to supplement wild production. 



Frontispiece. California condors in Sespe Condor Sanctuary. (Photo by Fred Sibley) 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Between 1939 and 1946, the National Audubon Society sponsored a study 
by Carl B. Koford of the breeding biology of the California condor (Gymno- 
gyps ealifornianus). His field work was concentrated on one condor nesting 
area in Ventura County, California. Library research into the history of the 
condor population, and occasional trips into other parts of the condor range, 
allowed him to publish a general overview of the species' history and status 
along with his observations of nesting behavior (Koford 1953). 

Koford 's work was followed in 1963-64 by a second National Audubon So- 
ciety study, a short-term assessment of changes in the California condor 
population since 1946 (Miller et al. 1965). These researchers concluded that 
there had been a one-third decrease in the size of the population since Ko- 
ford 's study. Additional research into the causes of the decline seemed 
highly desirable, and following the establishment of the Patuxent Wildlife 
Research Center's Endangered Wildlife Research Program in 1965, a U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service researcher, Fred C. Sibley, was assigned to renew 
investigations of this species. He studied various aspects of life history and 
ecology, specifically concentrating on the effects of man-caused disturb- 
ances on nesting condors. After November 1969, I continued the research 
begun by Sibley, with special emphasis on condor food supplies and on 
factors inhibiting reproduction. This publication contains the result of our 
combined research. 



Study Methods 

Information presented in this report was derived from review of approxi- 
mately 1,000 items of literature relating to the California condor and other 
aspects of avian biology, specimen records and field notes from 56 museums 
and private collections, about 3,500 condor observation reports from several 
hundred part-time cooperators, and the personal field work of Fred Sibley 
and myself. 

Altogether, Sibley and I spent approximately 900 days in the field on condor 
research. Sixty percent of our time was spent in condor nesting areas, 17% 
in summer roosting areas, and 23% in condor feeding areas. During 1966-69, 
nesting studies absorbed 66% of field time, with the remaining effort divided 
between feeding and roosting area studies. In 1970-76, 56% of my field time 
was spent in nesting areas, 31% in feeding areas, and 13% in roosting habi- 
tat. Ten percent of total field time was spent on investigations in the Coast 
Range Mountains; most of the remaining time was spent in Ventura, Los 
Angeles, Kern, and Tulare counties. 

Cooperators reported from all sections of the condor range, but coverage 
varied seasonally and geographically. Two-thirds of cooperator reports were 
for the period between June and October, when more people are in the field 
and back-country areas are generally more accessible. Also, condors are 
more conspicuous in summer and early fall because they are congregated in 
larger flocks in more accessible areas than at other seasons. 

About 15% of cooperator reports are of condors in the Coast Ranges, 35% 
of birds in the Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountains, and the remainder 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 




• BLUE 
/ RIDGI 

I • GLENNVILLE \ 



GAKERSFIELD 




Fig. 1. Locations of frequent observation points of California condor. 

in Ventura and Los Angeles counties. Areas of frequent condor observations 
are shown in Fig. 1. 

I have attempted to compare present-day condor numbers, production, 
and distribution with those of earlier time periods, but I recognize that this 
can be done only in a general way. Our research emphasis has been different 
than that of earlier studies; we have had a much larger group of cooperators 
reporting to us, and access into the condor range is now much quicker and 
easier than before. Also, reduction in total available habitat has changed 
condor distribution somewhat, and may have influenced flocking and migra- 
tion patterns. 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Species Characteristics 

A detailed account of California condor behavior and life history is in- 
cluded in Koford's (1953) monograph on the species, so it is unnecessary to 
repeat this information. A general survey of the condor's basic characteris- 
tics, however, will help put later sections of this report in perspective. 

The condor is a representative of the New World vultures, family Catharti- 
dae, which are traditionally classified with eagles, hawks, falcons, and re- 
lated birds (order Falconiformes). Some recent investigators (especially 
Ligon 1967) presented good morphological and behavioral evidence that 
New World vultures may actually be as closely related to the storks, family 
Ciconiidae, as they are to hawks and eagles (Fig. 2). 

California condors weigh approximately 9 kg (20 pounds) and have an 
average wingspread of 3 m (9 feet). They do not attain adult plumage until 6 
years of age. Because no immature-plumaged condors have ever been re- 
ported as part of a breeding pair, it is assumed that they do not reproduce 
until at least their 6th year. Condors in captivity have lived to be 35 to 45 
years old, but the average longevity of wild condors is thought to be about 
20 years. 

Although not proven, condors likely stay with the same mate as long as 
both survive. The clutch is limited to one egg, laid between February and 
May in a cave or rock crevice; length of incubation is unknown. Koford 
(1953) reported one egg incubated a minimum of 42 days. In captivity, the 
egg of the Andean condor (Vultur gryphus) has required 54 to 61 days to 
hatch (Lint 1959; Olivares 1963; Dekker 1967). 

The young bird is confined to the nest cave for about 20 weeks, and re- 
mains essentially flightless near the nest for another 10 weeks. Even after 
fledging, the immature condor is dependent on the parents for a number of 
months. Because the entire reproductive cycle may take longer than 12 
months, most condors have been thought to nest biennially. Nevertheless, it 
now appears that condors may under some circumstances breed in consecu- 
tive years. Conversely, several species of long-lived birds are known to breed 
less regularly than is biologically possible (Broley 1947; Wynne-Edwards 
1962), so the "normal" nesting interval for the California condor may be 
longer than every other year. 

California Condor Habitat 

Condors occupy a wishbone-shaped portion of California extending from 
Santa Clara County (rarely San Mateo County) south to Ventura County, 
then north to Fresno County (Fig. 3). This area corresponds roughly with the 
mountainous terrain surrounding the San Joaquin Valley: the Coast Ranges 
on the west, Transverse and Tehachapi Mountains at the south, and the 
Sierra Nevada on the east (Durrenberger 1965). Because the condor is a soar- 
ing bird, it depends to some extent on thermal updrafts and wind currents of 
mountain terrain for transport (Koford 1953:50). Historically, however, 
condors traveled far out over the almost flat Central Valley, as much as 65 
km (40 miles) from foothill areas (Belding 1879; Stillman 1967). Recent re- 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 






Fig. 2. Adult and immature condor in spread-wing posture, a behavior pattern shared 
with the storks. (Photo by Fred Sibley) 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



SAN JOSE _^ v 

w \ \ x 



/ 



SANTA 

:ruz 



■^ 






v \ A 




o\\ 



1 



/ \ \ X 

XSANTA»CLARAV^.-/ » MERCED * 

\\ X<\ C"\ A 

V'Vtf'--- \\ * * I MADERA \ /« 

FRE " \% \ a 

\% ^v \ KIN6S % \ , tulare , ) 
_ % v% 4— X ^ X- 1 t 

\ KERN \ v\ \ 

V bakersfieldK^ ] 



\ 






SAN LUIS OBISPO 



fv 



X 



^ 



40 km 

1 ' ' ' I 



CONDOR RANGE 
' BOUNDARY LINE 

MAJOR HIGHWAYS 



SANTA 
BARBARA' 



SISOUOC 
R SAN 



\ \O0NDC 



LV 



SANTA 
BARBARA 





Fig. 3. Principal range of the California condor, 1966-1976. 



striction to the more mountainous areas of the State is to a great extent a 
function of habitat availability. The San Joaquin Valley, formerly grassland 
with herds of native big game and domestic livestock, is now predominantly 
intensively managed cropland. The Los Angeles metropolitan area, with 
some 10 million inhabitants (Dooley et al. 1975), extends along the south 
boundary of the condor range for 150 km (90 miles) east and west, and 75 km 
(45 miles) north and south. Similarly, the San Francisco Bay area, with 4 mil- 
lion inhabitants and 7,400 km 2 (2,900 square miles) of urbanization and in- 
dustrialization (Dooley et al. 1975), forms a barrier to the north. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 7 

Although downtown Los Angeles is less than 75 km (45 miles) from the 
principal condor nesting areas in Ventura County, the condor range itself is 
sparsely populated and, with only a few exceptions, receives limited human 
use. Thirty-six percent (1.7 ha) is in public ownership, principally adminis- 
tered by the U.S. Forest Service (Rieger 1973). Much of the 2.8 million ha 
(6.9 million acres) of privately owned lands is in large holdings. The largest 
single holding, The Tejon Ranch in the Tehachapi Mountains, includes 
117,000 ha (290,000 acres), much of it open livestock range. 

Climate.— The climate of the condor range is semi-arid, with 25 to 75 cm 
(10-30 inches) precipitation, falling mainly as rain between November and 
May. Snowfalls are usually light and of short duration. No rain falls over 
much of the area in summer and early fall. Annual temperatures vary from 
to 43 C. One-half or more of the days during the year are essentially cloud- 
less (Durrenberger 1965). 

Geography.— Most condor habitat is located between 300 and 2,700 m 
(1,000-9,000 feet) elevation. This includes all of the Coast Range and 
Tehachapi Mountains, but only the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada. 
Distance from food sources may preclude regular use of higher elevations. 

Condor nesting occurs in the area 610 to 1,372 m (2,000-4,500 feet) above 
sea level. The nesting areas are characterized by extremely steep, rugged 
terrain, with dense brush surrounding high sandstone cliffs. Principal plant 
species are several types of Ceanothus, live oaks (Quercus sp.), chamise 
(Adenostoma fasiculatum), silk tassel bush (Garrya sp.), and poison oak 
(Rhus diversiloba). Interspersed with the brush are small groves of bigcone 
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa), which are favored roosting areas for 
condors. The cliffs have numerous crevices and wind- and water-created 
caves in which condors lay their eggs. 

Within the brushland (chaparral) community, there are small openings 
(potreros) dominated by annual grasses. In the Coast Ranges, through the 
Tehachapi Mountains, and in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada are vast 
areas of open grassland dominated by introduced annual grasses, particu- 
larly wild oats (Avena fatua) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Some 
stretches are almost treeless; others have scatterings of oaks (Quercus sp.), 
walnuts (Juglans californica), and related trees. In these open areas occupied 
by domestic livestock, condors find most of their food supply. Although all 
nesting sites are within the Los Padres National Forest, almost all condor 
feeding areas are privately owned. 

In the higher portions of the Transverse Ranges, and above about 1,800 m 
(6,000 feet) in the Sierra Nevada, are stands of several species of conifers. 
These forest areas are occupied by nonbreeding condors as summer roosting 
sites, and the open rangelands below provide food for them. 

Distribution 

General Distribu Hon, 1966-76 

Within the range of the California condor, there are well-defined seasonal 
movements and use areas. 



8 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

January. —Most condors are in the Sespe Creek-Piru Creek area of Ventura 
and western Los Angeles counties, and in the Tejon Ranch area of southern 
Kern County. Flocks in those areas sometimes include 10-15 condors, al- 
though the more usual group is about 4 birds. 

Elsewhere, condors range widely through the Coast Ranges from the 
southern San Francisco Bay area south through Santa Barbara County; 
most sightings there are of individuals or pairs. Less regularly, individuals 
and small groups inhabit northern Kern and southern Tulare Counties. 

February. —Most sightings occur in the vicinity of the Sespe Condor Sanc- 
tuary, and because the number of observations and flock sizes are similar to 
those in January, I think that the Tejon Ranch continues to harbor a large 
share of the population. Snow cover and poor road conditions preclude 
regular surveys in that area. 

Distribution in the Coast Ranges is similar to January. Use of northern 
Kern and Tulare counties increases, and condors occasionally range even 
farther north in the Sierra Nevada foothills. 

March.— Distribution in March is similar to February, although flock size 
in the Sespe area usually increases. 

April— Flock size in the Sespe area decreases as more condors move into 
Kern and Tulare counties. Kern and Tulare condors are apparently non- 
breeding condors beginning a northerly movement away from the Sespe- 
Piru breeding region. 

Coast Range distribution remains the same. 

May. —The general trend in May is continued dispersal as singles, pairs, 
and small groups (three to five birds), although some flocks of six to eight 
condors are occasionally seen in the Sespe-Piru region in May. Sightings be- 
come more numerous in the Sierra Nevada foothills of Tulare County. Coast 
Range distribution remains unchanged. 

June.— Populations in the Sespe-Piru region continue to decline, and most 
sightings and largest groupings are found in Tulare County. Flocks of 8-12 
condors are seen, but it is more common to see 5 or less together. Coast 
Range distribution remains constant. 

July.— The Sespe-Piru population is limited to a few scattered breeding 
pairs. Most condors inhabit Tulare and northern Kern Counties. In some 
years, perhaps because of food supply, a substantial population occupies the 
Mt. Pinos area on the Kern-Ventura County border. Flock size increases in 
July, and groups of 5-10 are seen. 

-August.— Condor use of the Coast Ranges and the Sespe-Piru area re- 
mains light, as most birds are in Kern and Tulare counties. Individual flock 
size reaches a peak in August and early September. Sightings of more than 
10 condors together are common, and there are six records of 20 or more con- 
dors in a group during this study. 

September.— In most years the majority of condors have moved south 
from Tulare County, although occasionally some large groups remain. Peak 
numbers are in northern Kern County in early September, then the birds 
begin a gradual movement southward into the Tejon Ranch area. 

October.— Condors may be found in any part of their total range in Oc- 
tober, but the majority are always found in the Tehachapi Mountains on and 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 9 

near the Tejon Ranch. Groups of 10-20 are regularly seen, and more than 
50% of the total condor population is found in that area. 

November-December.— Distribution is similar to that of October, with 
more use shifting back into the Sespi Piru region as winter progresses. 

Sightings outside the range depicted in Fig. 3 may involve occasional 
vagrant birds wandering from their usual habitat. However, based on 15 rec- 
ords (most so far unconfirmed) from western San Bernardino and Riverside 
counties, I suspect that a few condors regularly use that region, at least dur- 
ing summer and fall. 

Eight unconfirmed sightings in the Sierra Nevada foothills north of 
Fresno County suggest that some condors inhabit Madera and Mariposa 
counties, and perhaps even farther north, in some years. Although rumors of 
condors in the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Baja California, continue to be 
heard, it now appears unlikely that there is a resident population there (Kiff 
1977). 



Subpopulations of California Condor 

The regularity with which condors are observed in certain areas at specific 
times of year, and in relatively predictable numbers, indicates that at least 
two subpopulations of condors exist (Fig. 4). The division in the population 
occurs near the Santa Barbara-Ventura County line. On the Coast Range 
(western) side of this line since 1966, I have only five records of four or more 
condors together; the highest count was only five condors (Appendix I). The 
highest possible composite counts (condors sighted at locations far enough 
apart to be different birds) during this period do not indicate more than 10- 
11 condors in the entire Coast Range area. As will be discussed later, nesting 
habitat in this region appears adequate for a considerably larger population, 
and food supply seems greater and more dependable than in the Sespe-Piru 
area. If there is free interchange between Coast Range and Sespe condors, it 
seems likely that greater use would be made of the Coast Range area. 

Subpopulations are well known in other avian species. Common terns 
(Sterna hirundo) form individual cohesive groups that are self-sustaining 
and relatively free from association with other groups. Some colonies only a 
few miles apart are almost completely unrelated to one another (Austin 
1951). 

Herring gulls (Larus argentatus) segregate into subgroups for nesting and 
feeding (Drury and Nisbet 1972), and pink-footed geese (Anser brachy- 
rhynchus) "form closed groups occupying small, well-defined areas" in 
which "the scale of mixing is negligible" (Boyd 1972). Although not always 
thoroughly studied, the high degree of "homing" to specific areas and nest 
sites shown by such diverse groups and species as waterfowl (Sowls 1955; 
Hochbaum 1955), common crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos; Emlen 1940), 
ravens (Corvus corax; Cushing 1941), eagles (Broley 1947; Brown 1972), and 
peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus; Hickey 1942) not only suggests that 
subgroups within species are common, but also reveals how they are per- 
petuated. 



10 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



SAN JOSE _^ v 

OSANTA CLARA V^s/ 



SANTA 
CRUZ 



/ 

MERCED 




■APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES 
NESTING AREAS 




1- COAST RANGE POPULATION 
AUGUST - DECEMBER 



3- SUBPOPULATION 

AFFILIATION UNKNOWN 



2- COAST RANGE POPULATION 
YEARLONG 

4 - SESPE - SIERRA POPULATION 
YEARLONG 



5 - SESPE - SIERRA POPULATION 
MAY - SEPTEMBER 



Fig. 4. Seasonal and geographical distribution of California condor subpopulations in 
relation to remaining nesting areas. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 11 

Changes in Distribution, 1966-76 

No changes in either the overall range or areas used seasonally occurred 
during this 1 1-year period, but there \ ere changes in the magnitude of use of 
certain areas. For example, condor numbers were high at Mt. Pinos each 
August from 1966 through 1969. In subsequent years, condor use has been 
"on schedule" seasonally, but total numbers have been much lower. August 
numbers in the Glenn ville area of Kern County were especially high in 1970- 
74, but some condors are usually in this area at that time every year. A few 
condors are usually in southern Tulare County in September; however, the 
10-14 condors in that area during 1 week in September 1971 was an unusu- 
ally large group for so late in the year. 

Each of the changes noted appears related to differences in local food sup- 
ply during particular years. Thus, individual condors are not so dependent 
on specific sites that they cannot respond to certain environmental changes. 
However, condors seldom seem to wander erratically, and they seldom ap- 
pear at times or places where one would not expect to see them. Tradition, 
rather than food or any other factor, appears to be the major determinant of 
condor distribution. 



Changes in Distribution, 1935-65 

Condor range maps included in Koford (1953) and Miller et al. (1965) depict 
lesser distributional limits than I have described, although both reports in- 
clude observations of condors north of their "normal" range in both Sierra 
Nevada and Coast Ranges. These birds were considered vagrants, but be- 
cause neither study emphasized observations in the more outlying areas, it 
is likely that many visits by condors were unreported. Not enough data are 
available to make detailed comparisons, but it appears that there have been 
no significant changes in condor distribution spatially or seasonally since 
1935, although there have been changes in magnitude of use in certain areas. 
Actual habitable acreage has been appreciably reduced as a result of in- 
creased urbanization and other changes in land use. 

Although both Koford (1953) and Miller et al. (1965) apparently assumed 
one freely interchanging condor population, reports from their periods of 
study lend some support to my hypothesis that there are isolated subgroups 
of condors, and that this isolation is not a recent development. Condors 
passing between the Coast Ranges and the Sespe-Piru region would likely 
pass along the high ridges, past such locations as Nordhoff Peak, Reyes 
Peak, Whiteledge, Cuyama Peak, and Madulce Peak. Yet, even when large 
numbers of condors were known to be using both the Sisquoc Canyon area in 
the Coast Ranges and the Sespe-Piru area, and were believed to be traveling 
back and forth (Robinson 1940), observers at most of these locations re- 
ported condors only occasionally, and seldom more than two or three at a 
time (Koford 1953). At Madulce Peak in 1940, fire lookout B. Choice saw 
condors regularly, but they usually came from the Sisquoc Canyon area, 
circled near the fire tower, then returned in the direction from which they 
had come. Some condors could have circled up again high overhead and gone 



12 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

on to the east unnoticed, but if there was regular interchange in that vi- 
cinity, I think more evidence would be available. 

Distribution, Before 1935 

Koford (1953) discusses both the historic and prehistoric record of condor 
distribution in detail, citing Pleistocene and early Recent records of Gymno- 
gyps vultures (either the current species or a very similar one) from Cali- 
fornia, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Florida, and northern Mexico. 
He sets the post- 1800 range as the Pacific Coast from the Columbia River 
between Oregon and Washington, south into northern Baja California. 

Bones previously assigned to Gymnogyps at Shelter Cave, New Mexico 
(Howard and Miller 1933), have now been reassigned to Breagyps (Howard 
1971). Locations where Gymnogyps skeletal material has been recovered are 
listed below. 

1. Fossil beds 
Florida 

Reddick, Marion County (Brodkorb 1964). 
Seminole Field, Pinellas County (Wetmore 1931b). 
Hog Creek, Sarasota County (Wetmore 1931b). 
Itchtucknee River, Columbia County (McCoy 1963). 

2. Tar pits 
California 

La Brea, Los Angeles County (L. Miller 1910; Howard and Miller 

1939; Fisher 1944). 
Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County (L. Miller 1927). 
McKittrick, Kern County (Miller and DeMay 1942). 

3. Cave deposits 
California 

Samwel Cave, Shasta County (L. Miller 1911). 

Potter Creek Cave, Shasta County (L. Miller 1911). 
Nevada 

Smith Creek Cave, White Pine County (Howard 1952). 

Gypsum Cave, Clark County (L. Miller 1931). 
Arizona 

Rampart Cave, Mohave County (L. Miller 1960). 

Stanton Cave, Coconino County (DeSaussure 1956; Parmalee 1969). 

Tooth Cave, Coconino County (DeSaussure 1956). 

Tse-an Kaetan Cave, Coconino County (DeSaussure 1956). 
New Mexico 

Rocky Arroyo Cave, Otero County (Wetmore 1931a, 1932). 

Howell's Ridge Cave, Grant County (Howard 1962). 

Conkling Cave, Dona Ana County (Howard and Miller 1933). 

Dark Canyon Cave, Eddy County (Howard 1971). 
Texas 

Friesenhahn Cave, Bexar County (Brodkorb 1964). 

Mule Ears Cave, Brewster County (Wetmore and Friedmann 1933). 
Mexico 

San Josecito Cave, Aramberri, Nuevo Leon (L. Miller 1943). 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 13 



4. Indian mounds 
Oregon 

Brookings, Curry County (A. Miller 1942). 
Five Mile Rapids, Sherman County (L. Miller 1957). 
California 

Emeryville, Alameda County (Howard 1929). 

Santa Rosa Island, Santa Barbara County (Orr 1968). 

Whether condors were year-long residents across the southern United 
States to Florida is not known. Part of the skeletal material from Howell's 
Ridge Cave (New Mexico), Rampart Cave (Arizona), and Mule Ears Cave 
(Texas) has been identified as belonging to nestling birds, indicating breed- 
ing at least east to Texas. 

Koford (1953) did not include condor records north of the Columbia River, 
and tentatively concluded that all condors in the Pacific Northwest were va- 
grants from California, perhaps forced north in winter by food shortages. 
However, there are a number of apparently authentic records between the 
Columbia River and southern British Columbia (Douglas 1829; Macoun and 
Macoun 1909; Tolmie 1963). Also, although most records of condors on the 
lower Columbia River are from October to May, condors were present in the 
Pacific Northwest at other times of year. A specimen taken in the Columbia 
River area in 1825 was probably collected in late summer (Scouler 1905). 
Condors were observed in the Umpqua River area of Oregon from March 
through October (Finley 1908; Douglas 1914; Pe^.le 1957), and in southern 
British Columbia in September and November (Macoun and Macoun 1909; 
Tolmie 1963). Information is biased by the small number of reports, and 
probably by seasonal travel patterns of observers, but it indicates year-long 
residency by condors in the Pacific Northwest. No condor nests were found 
in Oregon, Washington, or British Columbia, perhaps because few people 
visited the more rugged portions of this region before the species disap- 
peared (Wilbur 1973). 

Disappearance of condors from most of then range south and east of Cali- 
fornia apparently occurred with little influence by man. In those areas the 
condor was not a feature of Indian culture or legend as it was in California, 
and it was gone before man caused major environmental changes (unless 
primitive man was responsible for the disappearance of the large Pleistocene 
mammals, as suggested by Martin 1967). Increasing aridity in parts of the 
Southwest, and the loss of a significant vulture food supply following the 
disappearance of most large mammals (Mehringer 1967) may have been suf- 
ficient to make the area uninhabitable for condors. 

In other areas, changes in distribution may be directly related to man's ac- 
tivities that caused entire subpopulations to disappear. For example, 
Monterey County, California, was once a major condor use area (Koford 
1953), but the breeding population was apparently exterminated by shoot- 
ing and egg collecting (to be discussed later). Although portions of the 
County still appear ideal for condor nesting, and condors are breeding a 
short distance to the southeast, nesting has not been reported since about 
1902, and condors are seldom seen there now. A similar series of events oc- 
curred in the San Diego-Orange County area of California. If small, isolated 
subpopulations lived in the Pacific Northwest, Baja California, and else- 



14 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



where, the known impacts of habitat modification and direct mortality were 
sufficient to reduce those groups to low levels from which they could not 
recover. 



Numbers 



Population Size, 1966-76 

It is difficult to estimate the total numbers of condors. Seasonal move- 
ments of the species involve some 4.5 million ha (10.8 million acres) of land 
(Rieger 1973), much of it rugged and isolated. Differentiating between indi- 
vidual birds and groups of birds is possible only on a very local and short- 
term basis (Wilbur 1975). Although more reliable observers than ever before 
are reporting condor sightings, there are still vast areas that are sparsely 
settled and receive only light and intermittent coverage. Considering these 
points, I think it is highly unlikely that all, or even most, condors could be 
seen in any given time period. Any population estimate based only on 
condors seen is probably low. 

The highest positive count during 1966-76 was 34 condors on 24 October 
1968 (Table 1). Several more condors can be safely added to this total. For in- 
stance, the October day totals include only two adult condors in Santa 
Barbara County, but an immature bird was known to be frequenting the 
area at that time. Similarly, only two of a known three-bird family group 
were observed in San Luis Obispo County. The third bird (immature) was 
known to be present both before and after 24 October, and was probably 
there on 24 October also. Four adult condors were still present in the Santa 
Barbara-San Luis Obispo area on 26 October, when two adults were seen far 
north of that region in Santa Clara County. It is unlikely that these birds 
came from outside the Coast Ranges, so they were probably not counted on 
24 October. 

Relating these 38 "sure" condors to the total population can only be done 
in a general way. During 1968 the current phase of condor research was well 
under way and key cooperators were reporting their sightings on a regular 
basis; therefore, probably few large groups of condors (more than five in a 
flock) could have gone unrecorded within the usual October range. In Oc- 
tober, however, small numbers of condors are seen regularly in Tulare 
County, northern Kern County, and in the mountainous areas of western 
Ventura County; there are also confirmed and tentative sightings outside 
the "normal" range at this season. Considering the incomplete coverage of 
the possible range, it is highly likely that at least 10, and possibly as many 
as 20, condors were not reported. This would put the minimum population 
size in 1968 at approximately 50 birds and the maximum near 60. 

Since 1968, both single and composite sightings have been fewer. Produc- 
tion during 1969-76 was about 13 young. Even if the long-term condor sur- 
vival rate exceeded 95% annually, an extremely high level to maintain over a 
long period of time, mortality probably would have exceeded natality during 
that time. The current population almost certainly contains less than 50, 
and perhaps as few as 40 condors. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 15 



Changes in Condor Numbers, 1920-65 

Koford (1953) estimated a population of 60 condors in 1920-50. Following 
essentially the same methods, but in a much shorter and less-detailed study, 
Miller et al. (1965) estimated 40 condors, a decline of about one-third be- 
tween 1950 and 1965. The current estimate of 40 to 50 condors cannot be di- 
rectly related to the results of those studies. Even trend comparisons are dif- 
ficult because the observation staff is presently much larger than in earlier 
studies, local distribution within the overall condor range is somewhat dif- 
ferent now, and some of the recent population information was derived from 
special "baiting surveys" that congregated birds near observers. After 
evaluating condor reports from various periods and estimating the effect 
that habitat changes may have on flock size and distribution, I conclude 
that the current population is smaller than in the early 1960's, and consider- 
ably smaller than in the 1940's and 1950's. If current condor population esti- 
mates are valid, both Koford (1953) and Miller et al. (1965) underestimated 
earlier condor populations. 

If all condors belonged to one more-or-less freely interchanging, highly 
mobile population, it would be difficult to justify a population estimate 
much greater than the largest number of condors seen together at one time. 
For example, 20 condors seen in Tulare County 1 day could be the same 20 
seen in Santa Barbara County 1 week later. Apparently both Koford (1953) 
and Miller et al. (1965) assumed complete and regu'ar interchange, but as al- 
ready discussed, this was probably not true. 

If Koford's (1953) observations are considered on a subpopulations basis, 
his high single counts of more than 30 condors in the Coast Ranges and over 
40 in the eastern segment of the range by themselves add up to a total popu- 
lation of more than 70 condors. Looking at the 1962 data (Miller et al. 1965), 
single counts of 8 condors in the Coast Ranges and 31 in eastern areas are re- 
corded. Considering that some birds are scattered and unaccounted for at all 
seasons, a total well over 40 appears likely. 

Comparing data included in Koford (1953) ?. id Miller et al. (1965), it ap- 
pears that the Sespe-Sierra subpopulation declined by about 10 birds be- 
tween 1950 and 1965, and the Coast Range group by 15 or more. The number 
of dead condors found and the rumors of other losses in Kern County during 
the early 1960's (Miller et al. 1965) suggest an unusually significant period 
of condor mortality, and may account for most of the loss from the Sespe- 
Sierra population. Losses from the Coast Ranges appear to have been even 
more abrupt at about the same time, as 15-20 condors were roosting in San 
Benito County and foraging in adjacent areas until about 1963 (Miller et al. 
1965; J. Mcllroy, personal communication; F. Sibley, unpublished field 
notes). Movement of this number of condors in the Coast Ranges is well 
documented up to that time, and the abrupt cessation of reports suggests 
that some mortality factor affected the whole group at once. 

Condor Numbers, Before 1920 

Reliable condor population estimates are not available for the years before 
Koford's (1953) investigations, although figures ranging from 150 in the 



16 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



a 
•3 
3 
>> 5 



V 



^ d 

0> CO 



01 

*■> s 
<d o 

CQ O 

0)" sJ 



01 01 

=3 3 
§ CQ 



CO 



u 2 c 

=3 "fc S 

S « cS 

fe ^ fc 

tf £ tf 



H 

c .22 

co 3 

6 o* 
§ -2 
c ^ 

°l 
CQ ^ 

HiS 



>> 
C 
CO 



W Hi 



CO WO 






o> 


j- 


c 


CQ 


0) 


c 


a 


IM 


Lh 


efl 


eg 


fe 


O 



5 


p 


a 




"3 
X 


£ 


H 


< Q 


C 


M 


CO 

3 


a 
1 


3j 


So 

CO 






4J 


!- 


co 


a 




o 

PQ 


O 


S 


>-3 


£§ 



o 



c § 

3 O 

° c 

£ * 

cj CO 

3 tf 

CO 

X, 



o 



CQ 



CO 3 

d c 



ca ?> CO 



s > 



^ 
.3, 

01 c 
E-| CO 



3 



-a .22 S 



U 



cc 



CO 



> CO 

o> 

03* CU 

s <° 

s § 



3 


3 


o 


c 


C3 


O 


I* 




3 


c 


—i 


>- 


3 


0) 


cb 


W 


> 


o* 


CO 


:zn 


C 


'> 


C 


s 


£ 


3 





aS 



x 



co a 



as 



0) P-> 



a, £> 
"3 3 
O O 



ca « 



h e-i fc 



3 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 



17 



2 



.* 



■3 0> 
■• ffl "3 



§1° - 

23 W) id* u 

E aj h fc J 

W p-i P3 03 







-J? >> 






c *» 






3 E 






o 3 






^6 






C 1 






s- CO 






0) >-, 






« 3 






_.- c 






C (V 






£> 


£3 
u 

c 


u 

c 


CO o 


03 


CO 


o .3 


23 


03 


w>m 


C 


c 


CO 

■3 co 


O 

57 


o 
'5? 


11 


£h 


H 


73 < 



5b 



o> 



a ° 



C C 

3 3 
o o 



4-3 






XI 


- | 






C 


CO 


>, 




J 


d 


OJ 

bo 


-* 


| -s 


CO 


'3 


_2 


© 


& 


O'O 


CO 


CO 

c 




03 Q 


c 


s 


Hi 


c 

CO 


go 


§ 


J 


£S 



CO 



CO CO 

■- >-, 
co 3 
T3 -t- 9 


CO C 

„r > 


3 C 


01 


H <ii 


.£ js j= « 


be s 


BigP 
Ranc 
Ranc 
Blanc 


c _ 


i_> C C CO 


• 3 XJ 
73 O 


Wes 
Tejo 
Tejo 
Agu 



r^ IN O ■* CO 



in 








t> 




0) 




Ol 




.2 




i— l 


^^ 


O 


_^ 


>> 


CO 

it 


u 


CO 


3 


O 


o 


o 


>-5 


E-> 


T* 


E-i 



18 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



1920's (Phillips 1926) to 10 in 1932 (Atkinson 1972) have appeared in print. 
The much more extensive range, and the frequent use in the literature of 
such descriptive terms as "particularly abundant" (Gambel 1846) and 
"common" (Newberry 1857) suggest a population much larger than today's, 
but even in the 1800's it was unusual to see flocks containing more than 20 
to 25 condors. The only reports that I found of really large flocks of condors, 
150 to 300 in feeding groups, are somewhat suspect because they are in- 
cluded in an article full of misinformation and hearsay (Taylor 1859). 

Whatever the early numbers, the consensus is that the condor population 
decreased appreciably after about 1840. Cooper (1890) recorded that condors 
had "rapidly grown scarce" between 1840 and 1890, and Henshaw (1876) 
noted that the population seemed to be "very much diminished during the 
last few years." 

Past Causes for Condor Decline 

As noted previously, prehistoric decline in condor numbers was probably 
related to changes in the carrying capacity of large areas of habitat, as the 
great herds of large mammals became extinct and condor food diminished. 
Later, the almost complete conversion to urbanization and agriculture of 
such areas as the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Salinas Valleys reduced 
condor feeding area appreciably, and numerous roads and trails were made 
into mountain nesting and roosting areas. Until recently, none of these 
changes caused a shortage of food or lack of habitat. Factors suggested as 
causing, or contributing to, the decline of condors are evaluated below. 



Indian Ceremonial Use 

The California condor figures prominently in the religion and ritual of sev- 
eral California Indian tribes. The "Panes" festival, which involved sacrific- 
ing a young condor each year, was widespread in the State, and many tribes 
collected and killed their own bird (Bancroft 1882). Another ritual, known as 
the "Aswut Maknash" or eagle-killing ceremony, was practiced by the 
Temecula Indians of Orange County. Condors presumably were sometimes 
substituted for eagles (Parker 1965). Kroeber (1925) mentions condors kept 
as pets by Indians in Kern County, and notes that condor feathers were used 
in various ceremonies among tribes throughout coastal California from 
Humboldt County to Mexico. Russian settlers visiting the northern Cali- 
fornia coast in the early 1800's found entire capes made of condor feathers. 
Some of these were taken to Russia and are still in existence (Vaughan 1971). 

Condors apparently were still relatively common during the height of 
these practices, and there is no evidence such activity caused any significant 
population decline. Because the condor was highly revered, it is doubtful 
there was killing other than that prescribed by ritual. However, considering 
the low reproductive rate of the condor, it seems possible that tribal activity 
kept the condor population at least stabilized and possibly slightly de- 
pressed in some areas. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 19 



Killing for Feathers 

Several writers refer to the great demand for condor quills to be used as 
gold dust containers. Dawson (1923) felt it was an important decimating 
factor, and suggested that hundreds of condors must have been killed for 
that reason alone. Another writer (Siddon 1967) claimed that "a 'quill of 
gold' became a standard measuring unit in the gold fields." 

In Baja California in the 1880's, Anthony (1893) saw Indian and Mexican 
miners carrying gold dust in condor quills, and saw condors (three?) that had 
apparently been killed for their feathers. In Los Angeles County, California, 
in 1841 "New Mexican" miners were seen carrying their gold dust in 
"turkey buzzard or vulture" quills (the term "vulture" usually referred to 
the California condor during that period; Bidwell 1966). These two reports 
constitute the only firsthand information on the subject I could find. I read 
16 journals written during the California gold rush, and although several re- 
cord observations of the California condor, none mentions the use of condor 
quills for gold storage. Invariably, miners are described as carrying their 
gold dust in buckskin pouches (Leeper 1894; Borthwick 1917; Johnston 
1948). If the practice of using quills had been widespread, it would seem that 
references to it would have survived from that era. 

Douglas' (1914) reference to condor quills being used for pipe stems was 
quoted in several works, but he was apparently misinformed. The same 
source told him of condors laying black eggs, nesting in trees, and laying two 
eggs per clutch. California condors apparently have not suffered from the ef- 
fects of millinery trade that the Andean condor reportedly did (Chapman 
1917). 



Capturing for Sport 

In one of the earliest general articles on cc idors, Taylor (1859) tells of 
hearing about condors involved in "the same custom of capture and sport 
. . . practiced in Peru and Chile." Presumably men hid in pits and caught 
condors by the legs, then held contests with them against bears, dogs, and 
eagles. However, Taylor (1859) "... never had the opportunity of witnessing 
any of these fights." Harris (1941) made an extensive review of the literature 
of the period, and failed to authenticate such contests. My review of Gold 
Rush literature revealed numerous references to bear and bull fights, but 
none involving condors. If condor fights occurred, the total impact on the 
condor population was undoubtedly negligible. 

There are reports of condors being run down on foot or horseback, or 
lassoed, but most apparently involved sick or injured birds (Koford 1953). 
The practice of "penning" — catching condors in an enclosure big enough for 
them to land in, but not offering enough runway to take off again — is also 
mentioned as a condor mortality factor, but mostly as hearsay or in reports 
questionable on other grounds. For example, Shields (1895) derived informa- 
tion on "penning" from a man who also told him about condors killing 
lambs. Several older popular articles mention condors killing their prey, but 
there is no firsthand evidence that this occurs. 



20 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Wanton Shooting 

Mortality resulting from malicious or ignorant shooters is one of the 
factors most often cited as a major cause of condor decline. Cooper (1890) re- 
ported many being shot, and Dawson (1923) considered the cause of condor 
mortality "first and foremost, gunfire." In the 1940's, Koford (1953) 
thought it probable that one condor per year was being shot. The case 
against shooting is in part inferential, based on condor vulnerability and 
shooter opportunity and attitude (Miller et al. 1965), but losses to gunfire 
are better documented than most other mortality factors. I have records 
(Appendix II) of 41 condors shot more or less without reason between 1806 
and 1976. Because condor shooting has been illegal for many years, it is 
probable that most shooting incidents are unreported or unobserved. Shoot- 
ing probably has caused a significant and continuous drain on the condor 
population since the early 1800's, with the magnitude of this loss increasing 
following the advent of the high-powered rifle in the 1890's (Chambers 1936). 
One confirmed shooting loss has occurred since 1960. Credit for the decline 
in shooting losses goes to improved legal protection and greatly increased 
public education. 



Scientific and Hobby Collecting 

Collecting of condors and their eggs has been suggested by several 
authors as one of the chief causes of condor decline (Dawson 1923; Fry 1926; 
Scott 1936b). Koford (1953) estimated that about 200 condors and condor 
eggs had been taken as specimens, and concluded that "undoubtedly collect- 
ing activity has contributed significantly to the decline of the condor in 
some areas." 

Analyzing museum and written records, I found evidence of 177 condors 
killed and 71 eggs taken for additions to collections. Also, 24 live birds were 
taken for exhibit or as pets (Appendix II). At least 111 birds and 49 eggs were 
taken between 1881 and 1910 alone, and in a single 2-year period (1897 and 
1898) at least 20 condors and 7 eggs were secured. 

The disappearance of condors from various parts of their range coincided 
with peaks of collecting activity in those same areas. Koford (1953) esti- 
mated that condors had become very rare in Oregon and Washington by 
1840, in California from Monterey County north by 1890-1900, and in 
coastal Santa Barbara County and in San Diego County by 1910. He 
thought condors in eastern Santa Barbara County and Ventura County were 
holding their own through the mid-1940's. The main periods of collecting 
activity were: Oregon and Washington 1805-35, Monterey and San Diego 
areas 1880-1900, Santa Barbara coast 1891-1910, and Ventura County 
1901-24. 

If the condor population is viewed as a series of smaller subgroups asso- 
ciated with known or suspected subgroup areas, then a correlation can be 
drawn between condor disappearance and collecting activity. Because 
condors have such low replacement potential, isolated groups could be 
quickly reduced to a level from which they could not recover. Because of tra- 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 21 



ditional ties to their own subpopulations, condors would re-pioneer historic 
range very slowly or not at all. 

Canada geese (Branta canadensis) provide an example of how this loss of 
subpopulations and abandonment of suitable habitat might have occurred. 
Habitat from which the resident population has been removed (for instance, 
by overshooting) may never be repopulated, even though Canada geese pass 
by the area and "know" that suitable habitat exists there. Hochbaum (1955) 
believed this occurs because all geese with local breeding experience are 
gone, and traditional ties to other localities (even less suitable ones) are too 
strong for geese to break. Hesitancy in re-pioneering areas formerly oc- 
cupied by their species is shown by various other species of waterfowl (Sowls 
1955) and by the common crow (Emlen 1940). 

In the Pacific Northwest, at least eight condors were collected between 
1805 and 1835. At least three more are known to have been shot during this 
period. If there was a local population of 1, 2, or 3 dozen individuals (Koford 
1953), known mortality would have been enough to jeopardize it. If, as 
seems likely, more were shot than are recorded in the literature, combined 
collecting and other shooting could have exterminated the bulk of the popu- 
lation and reduced it below a viable level. A remnant could have survived in 
the area until the early 1900's. 

Subpopulations were apparently larger in California, but collecting effort 
was also much greater. Collecting in each subpopulation area continued until 
condors and their eggs were no longer readily obtainable. At the end of the 
collecting era in the 1920's, substantial numbers of condors existed only in 
eastern Santa Barbara County and in Ventura County, and collecting was 
intensive in the latter area. 

Poisoning 

Many ornithologists in the late 19th century reported major mortality of 
condors from feeding on strychnine-poisoned meat (Baird et al. 1874; Hen- 
shaw 1876; Ridgway 1880; Cooper 1890; Bendire 1892). Later researchers 
concluded there was little basis for these earlier claims (Dawson 1923; 
Robinson 1940; Harris 1941; Koford 1953). In analysis, all the early reports 
appear to be hearsay and all apparently originated from information sup- 
plied by Taylor (1859), but his paper lacks definite information, and merely 
states that condors are "often killed by feeding on animals . . . poisoned by 
strychnine"; it is not clear whether he ever observed this. Taylor included a 
number of highly questionable stories in his account (e.g., condors attacking 
and killing calves, lambs, and rabbits), and there is no clear-cut line between 
reliable information and fantasy. 

I was able to find only three firsthand accounts of condors being affected 
by poisons. Fry (1926) in 1890 saw two condors that had died, apparently 
after feeding on a sheep carcass treated with an unspecified poison. In 1950 
three condors were found near a strychnine-treated carcass; one died, two 
presumably recovered (Miller et al. 1965). Another condor was found in simi- 
lar circumstances in 1966 and judged to be strychnine-poisoned. Following 
treatment at the Los Angeles Zoo, this bird was released back to the wild 
(Borneman 1966). 



22 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Although some condors have fallen victims to poisoning, there seems to be 
no basis for reports of "great numbers" dying (Henshaw 1876). It is doubt- 
ful that poison losses figured significantly in the major condor decline of the 
late 19th century, but occasional losses since then have probably combined 
with mortality from other causes to keep the population level depressed. 

Because the condor population's delicate balance could be upset by vir- 
tually any change in either birth or death rate, everything that retards pro- 
ductivity or increases mortality must share responsibility for any reduction 
in condor numbers. However, the combination of wanton shooting and pur- 
poseful collecting occurred at the proper time and in the magnitude neces- 
sary to have caused a major reduction in population size. Had these two 
factors continued in full effect for another decade past 1925, even the rem- 
nant populations of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties might have been 
reduced below viable levels. 

Recent Causes of Condor Decline 

Apparently no single factor has caused a significant loss of condors since 
about 1960. Of the 16 known losses, 3 were victims of accidents and 2 were 
shot. Causes of the other losses are unknown. Cumulative losses for all 
reasons have apparently been greater than productivity during the past 15 
years, thus a reduction in mortality is mandatory if the condor's status is to 
be improved. 

Production 

Production, 1966-76 

Estimates of condor production are based on actual observations of 
known nest sites, observation of condor activity in known and potential nest 
areas, and on numbers of immature-plumaged birds observed during popula- 
tion counts. From 1966 to 1969 most nest sites were visited individually and 
the contents checked; since 1969, observations of nesting areas have been 
substituted for actual nest checks. Estimates of production by year follow. 
The first number after the year is the estimated total production and the sec- 
ond is the number of successful nestings known for certain (i.e., active nest 
found or recently hatched young seen): 1966-3/1; 1967-4/3; 1968-2/1; 1969- 
2/1; 1970-2/1; 1971-2/2; 1972-2/2; 1973-1/0; 1974-1/1; 1975-2/2; and 1976-2/2. 

In any year, nesting activity by individual pairs may go unnoticed, so esti- 
mates of total production may be conservative. However, it is unlikely that 
more than one nesting pair per season is missed. Condors are very tradi- 
tional in their use of nesting areas, returning again and again to the same 
general localities and even to the same nesting caves. All sites (except one 
known to have been used only once since 1938) are in locations with a long 
history of condor use. The estimated numbers of successful nestings are 
therefore believed to be very close to the actual production. 

The apparent decline in annual production shown in the above estimates is 
confirmed by sightings of immature birds in the population at large. In 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 23 



October 1968, August 1969, and August 1970, composite records indicated 
possible counts of 10, 10, and 13 immature-plumaged condors in the total 
population, based on high individual counts and geographical distribution of 
individual immature sightings. The same criteria yielded "composite prob- 
able" counts of up to eight immatures in 1971 and 1972. In 1973 only six im- 
matures could be accounted for; in 1974 only four; in 1975, five; and in 1976, 
six. 

Decreased productivity is a result of less reproductive activity, rather 
than decreased nest success. In fact, the percentage of nest success may 
have been greater since about 1970. For example, of four certain nesting at- 
tempts in 1966, only one resulted in a fledged immature. In 1967, three out 
of six known attempts were successful. Since 1970 only one suspected nest 
attempt has been unsuccessful. However, nest checking has been less inten- 
sive recently, and some nests that failed early in the season may have gone 
unnoticed. 

Comparisons with Production Before 1966 

In 4 years of study (1939-41, 1946), Koford knew of 13 condor nesting at- 
tempts, 9 of which were successful (Sibley 1969). This average of 2.25 young 
per year is superficially similar to the 1966-76 average. However, Koford did 
not conduct an extensive nest search — in fact did not visit all known nest- 
ing areas — so he undoubtedly did not find all nesting birds. On 13 April 
1946 he saw 12 immature condors simultaneously, all of which had to be 
younger than 5 years of age. The probability of having all immature birds to- 
gether in one place at one time is extremely low, and Koford himself esti- 
mated that there were 15-20 immatures in the population. Therefore, four to 
five young per year is probably realistic for that period, which requires that 
the reproductively active number of pairs in the population, assuming bien- 
nial nesting and some unsuccessful pairs, numbered 12 or more. Thus, some 
40% of the population was engaged in reproductive effort. 

There is good reason to believe that Koford s estimate of 60 birds in 1940- 
50 was low, and his failure to recognize distinct subpopulations of condors 
probably resulted in an underestimate of the number of young birds in the 
total population. Actual figures for number and productivity should be in- 
creased but, from the data available, it appears that 40% is a probable figure 
for the reproductive segment of the population then. 

Miller et al. (1965) did no nest searching during 1963-64, and their effort to 
collect and analyze reports of condors was less exhaustive than other 
studies. Their records of at least 10 immature plumaged birds show a mini- 
mum average productivity of 2.5 young, and indicate that at least seven or 
eight pairs were reproductively active (again assuming biennial nesting and 
some nest failure). Beyond that, no valid comparisons can be made. 

Among the current population of approximately 45 condors, 85% are 
adult-plumaged birds. If reproductive activity began with attainment of 
adult plumage, if sex ratios were equal within the population, and if there 
was free mixing of all condors throughout their range, then a maximum of 19 
pairs could be formed. Assuming that each pair nested biennially, 9 or 10 
nesting attempts would be possible each year. 



24 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Actually, it seems likely that first breeding is deferred for some years after 
adult plumage is attained. A captive California condor was 12 years old 
before laying its first egg (Dixon 1924). First breeding in captive Andean 
condors usually occurs at 8 to 10 years (Lint 1959; Anon. 1976). Golden 
eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) attain adult plumage at about 3V2 years, but do 
not breed until their 5th year (Jollie 1947; Spofford 1964). 

The sex ratio is probably uneven in the condor population. My examina- 
tion of museum records showed that 60% of the specimens taken were males. 
Sexes look identical, and most condors were collected away from nests, so 
there should not have been appreciable differential mortality from shooting. 
It has been hypothesized that males survive better than females in species 
that are not sexually dimorphic (Cody 1971). 

Finally, the occurrence of distinct subpopulations limits the mixing of 
condors from different regions, reducing the likelihood that all potential 
breeding birds will find mates. 

Minimum breeding age, sex ratio, and spatial distribution probably all 
affect the reproductive potential of the condor population. Unfortunately, 
we do not yet know the magnitude of each effect. If there are 60% males in 
both subpopulations, and if normal age of first breeding is 8 to 10 years, 
then there is the potential for 12 breeding pairs, or 6 breeding attempts per 
year. 

Actually, only a couple of pairs attempt to breed each year, much lower 
than would be expected in any situation except an extremely disparate sex 
ratio. Determining the cause of reduced reproduction and correcting the sit- 
uation is currently the key to condor survival. 

Control of reproduction in birds and mammals still is not completely 
understood, but it is clear that success involves a precise blending of a 
number of factors. Photostimulation by increasing day length may be 
enough to induce a high level of sexual readiness in the male but not in the fe- 
male. She requires interaction with the male before ovarian development is 
complete (Lehrman 1959; Immelmann 1971). Even when the internal phy- 
siology is wholly prepared, reproduction is greatly influenced by various 
stimuli and inhibitors. Stimuli such as adequate food or nest site availability 
act as releasing mechanisms that allow progression to the next stage of the 
reproductive cycle, and initiate actual nest building and egg laying (Lehr- 
man 1959; Immelmann 1973). Inhibitors, such as sudden cold, fear, nest de- 
struction, or chemicals, may block the reproductive process at any point 
(Marshall 1961; Cade et al. 1968). If inhibitors are too strong, or final ex- 
ternal stimuli are lacking, reproduction will not occur (Marshall 1952, 1961; 
Immelmann 1971, 1973). 

Food Supply 

The relationship of food and welfare of the California condor has been dis- 
cussed and studied for a number of years. Early researchers (Robinson 1940; 
Koford 1953) thought that food supply was already becoming a limiting 
factor in the 1930's and early 1940's. Koford (1953) described changes in 
food supply as the second most important factor affecting distribution and 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 



25 




*;*■ 










- m 



Fig. 5. California condors and ravens gathered at mule deer carcass. (Photo by San- 
ford Wilbur) 



numbers of condors in the past century. He thought direct persecution by 
man was the most important. A study made in the early 1960's (Miller 
et al. 1965), however, concluded that food supply for condors was adequate 
at all times of year, and had not been a limiting factor "since the 1920's." 
These later findings were based on what researchers considered adequate re- 
production and an estimated overabundance of food within the condor forag- 
ing range. These authors apparently assumed condors were free to forage 
into all parts of their total range at all times of year, an assumption that is 
invalid. Miller et al. (1965) also failed to adequately differentiate between the 
total amount of food within the condors' range (i.e., all animals that die) and 
the amount of food actually available to condors (Brown and Watson 1964; 
Immelmann 1971). 

Foods Eaten 



California condors feed only on the carcasses of dead animals, primarily 
mammals (Fig. 5). Many species are eaten but, as Koford (1953) noted, do- 
mestic cattle constitute the most important food source by far. Cattle are 
even more important today than during Koford s research period, because 
domestic sheep have declined drastically in California (California Crop and 
Livestock Reporting Service 1970), and more are grazing outside normal 
condor range (Burcham 1957). Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), while pos- 
sibly a "preferred" food (Koford 1953), tend to drift toward canyon bottoms 



26 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



to die (Blong 1954; Taber and Dasmann 1958), where steep terrain and brush 
interfere with condor foraging. Carcasses under brush are hard to see, and 
condors apparently cannot locate food by smell (Beebe 1909; Stager 1964). 
Thus, deer have probably never been a major food item for condors, and ex- 
pansion of the deer population in some areas (Miller et al. 1965) and apparent 
declines in other areas have not altered condor food supplies overall. Ground 
squirrels (Citellus beechyi) killed by animal control programs have been lo- 
cally important food sources in the past (Koford 1953), but are now seldom 
available in numbers. All things considered, an evaluation of condor food 
supply must consider cattle availability first, followed by other sources to 
the extent of their quantity, periodicity, and dependability within the 
condor range. 



Amount of Food Required 

A 9-kg (20-pound) California condor has a standard metabolism of about 
350 kcal/day, as computed from the formula in King and Farner (1961). Con- 
verting to the metabolic rate of a free-flying bird is still speculative, because 
free-flying metabolism of other large birds has been experimentally esti- 
mated at from 2 to 4 times standard metabolism (Kahl 1964; Houston 1971; 
Jarvis et al. 1974). Depending on which is more correct, a California condor 
may have a free-flying metabolism of 650 to 1,300 kcal/day. Food eaten by 
condors has an energy value of about 1.25 kcal/g (Houston 1971), so the 
daily food requirement of the condor is from 525 g (1.1 pounds) to 1,040 g 
(2.2 pounds). 

A captive California condor ate approximately 1 kg (2 pounds) of meat per 
day (Todd and Gale 1970), and maintained an average body weight of 9.98 
kg (22 pounds; Todd 1974). Other large birds of prey eat daily amounts of 
food averaging 7 to 10% of their body weight (Craighead and Craighead 
1956; Brown and Amadon 1968). 

Condors cannot forage every day because of occasional periods of incle- 
ment weather, and I have seen them stay near roosting areas all day even in 
favorable weather. Probably the usual daily situation is that a condor either 
gets much more or much less than the average daily food requirement. Afri- 
can griffon vultures (Gyps africanus and G. ruppellii) can hold up to one-fifth 
their body weight in their crop and can rapidly store fat after a large food in- 
take. Maximum fat stores and expendable protein have been found suffi- 
cient to maintain them at least 15 days without feeding (Houston 1971). 
Captive turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) deprived of food up to 11 days 
maintained normal body temperature and remained healthy (Hatch 1970). 
The California condor can undoubtedly respond in similar fashion. 

In addition to supplying their own energy needs, successfully nesting 
condors must provide food for one nestling. The daily food requirement of a 
growing raptor is equal to that of an adult (Brown and Amadon 1968), so a 
breeding pair of condors require about 3 kg (6 pounds) of food per day. 
Condors usually feed their young every day, although nestlings have been 
known to survive without food for up to 45 h (Koford 1953). How the chick's 
ability to go without food compares to the adult is unknown. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 27 



Required Location of Food 

Condors are able to travel long distances in search of food. Their normal 
soaring speed is estimated at 50 km/h (30 miles per hour; Koford 1953), and 
in midsummer there may be as many as 6 h per day in which atmospheric 
conditions are suitable for soaring flight. (In winter there are seldom more 
than 4 soaring hours.) Theoretically, condors might travel 125-175 km (75- 
100 miles) on a summer day. 

Actually, effective foraging time and range are much less than maximum. 
Foraging involves much circling and searching, as well as direct flight. 
When a carcass is located, condors often do not immediately descend to it. If 
a coyote {Canis latrans) or golden eagle is feeding on the carcass, they may 
prevent condors from feeding for some time. On one occasion, I observed 
nine California condors waiting at a deer carcass for 45 min while an eagle 
fed. 

Tradition is also important in determining food availability. As described 
earlier, condors are predictable in their seasonal distribution. Although they 
adapt to minor changes in food location, it is unlikely that under most condi- 
tions they would move far outside their normal seasonal range to search for 
food. For raptorial birds generally, attachment to a given traditional area 
has little to do with the resources available to that area (Craighead and 
Craighead 1956). Therefore, although food is available in Tulare County in 
December, it will not be available to condors who are traditionally elsewhere 
at that time. Neither would I expect condors from Ventura County to forage 
in San Luis Obispo County at any time of year, because the historic record 
suggests the lack of a traditional tie between those areas. As will be dis- 
cussed later, traditions can be broken, but only with great difficulty, and 
with possible serious effects on other aspects of species' survival. 

Distances between known nesting and roosting areas and regularly used 
feeding areas are generally less than 50 km (30 miles; Koford 1953). Al- 
though some food may be obtained at greater distances, breeding condors 
probably obtain almost their entire annual livelihood within 50 km of the 
nest. Nonbreeding birds are undoubtedly more flexible, but probably also 
obtain most of their food within 50 km of whatever roost they are occupying. 



Current Food Situation 

Coast Range Condors 

There have been land-use changes that have made certain areas (e.g., the 
major valleys and areas close to cities) unsuitable for condors in the Coast 
Ranges. However, reports from county farm advisors and my own observa- 
tions show that there are still vast acreages of rangeland well stocked with 
livestock and deer (Fig. 6). Little decrease in the condor food supply is antici- 
pated in the near future. The maximum of 10 condors now using this area 
should have little trouble finding adequate food, although they may have to 
move considerable distances at times. 



28 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 




Fig. 6. Typical Coast Range feeding habitat for California condors. (Photo by Sanford 
Wilbur) 




Fig. 7. Hopper Canyon, Sespe Condor Sanctuary, an important condor nesting and 
roosting area. (Photo by Sanford Wilbur) 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 29 



A food problem may exist for breeding condors in the Coast Ranges. Al- 
though known nesting sites in San Luis Obispo County appear well supplied 
with local food, the area can support only a few pairs of condors because of 
few nesting sites. In Santa Barbara County there is considerable nesting 
habitat that has been used in past years, but the local food situation had ap- 
parently deteriorated by 1940 (Koford 1953), and the downward trend has 
continued. Deer numbers may be increasing near nesting areas in response 
to improved habitat, including the results of fire and brush manipulation, 
but livestock numbers have decreased on both east and west sides of the 
area (L. V. Maxwell, farm advisor, personal communication). I doubt that 
this area has enough food to support more than a few pairs of breeding 
condors. 

Nesting areas exist in Monterey County that still appear suitable for 
condors and might be repopulated in the future. The food supply in that re- 
gion seems adequate for several breeding pairs. 

Summer is the critical food season in the Coast Ranges. Almost all live- 
stock mortality occurs in late fall, winter, and spring. Occasional deer die- 
offs may provide abundant food in local areas at other times of year, but 
such occurrences are unpredictable and cannot be considered a regular part 
of the condors' food supply. The summer food slump in the Coast Range is 
sufficiently extreme that it may be a limiting factor in the expansion of the 
condor population. 

Sespe-Sierra Breeding Population 

The region in and around the present-day Sespe Condor Sanctuary, desig- 
nated the Sespe-Piru area, has been an important condor nesting and winter- 
ing area since at least 1880 (Koford 1953), and probably for many centuries 
before that (Fig. 7). It is a logical choice because it is rugged and isolated, 
and has numerous sandstone cliffs with caves for nesting, coniferous trees 
for roosting, and shallow pools for drinking and bathing. Although there are 
other suitable nesting areas in other parts of the condors' range, the Sespe- 
Piru region is certainly the most expansive in terms of acreage and number 
of individual nest sites. Historically, it was a logical choice for a breeding 
area because of a food supply that was nearby and abundant throughout the 
year. Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), tule elk (Cervus nan- 
nodes), and mule deer were common within foraging distance (Dasmann 
1958), and the local seacoast undoubtedly provided food in the form of dead 
whales, sea lions, and other marine life (Koford 1953). As native mammals 
became less abundant, domestic cattle and sheep increased and provided an 
alternate, and possibly more plentiful and reliable, food source. Potential 
food supply was well distributed in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties south 
of the Sespe-Piru area, and to the east in Kern County, making the nesting 
area the hub of a large foraging area. 

Koford (1953) described various changes in livestock numbers and land 
use in the Sespe-Piru region that together caused considerable decrease in 
foraging land and potential food supply before 1940. For example, he docu- 
ments a major decline in sheep numbers in Ventura and Kern Counties in the 
early 1900's and again in the 1930's. Although cattle numbers increased dur- 



30 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



ing that time, Koford (1953) concluded that the increase was not sufficient to 
make up for the loss of sheep as a source of condor food. 

Since 1940 the local food situation has continued to deteriorate. Between 
1960 and 1970, large acreages of condor foraging habitat in southern Ven- 
tura and northern Los Angeles Counties disappeared beneath new residen- 
tial and industrial developments. The Agoura-Calabasas area tripled its 
human population in that 11-year period; the Thousand Oaks-Westlake dis- 
trict was 4 times larger in 1970 than in 1960; and the Simi Valley population 
increased 600% in that period (Security Pacific National Bank 1970). As a 
rough measure of loss of condor foraging habitat, I compared extent of ur- 
banization shown on two sets of U.S. Geological Survey maps (7.5 minute 
quadrangles for Newbury Park, Thousand Oaks, Moorpark, Simi, and Santa 
Susana), the first completed in 1950 and 1951 and the second copies of the 
same maps photorevised in 1967 and 1969. In that 80,000-ha (200,000-acre) 
area, roughly 8,000 ha (20,000 acres) of condor feeding habitat have been 
completely urbanized in that time period. The actual loss is much higher be- 
cause even where "rangeland" still exists, it has been divided into small 
parcels with considerable human activity and is seldom used by condors. 

Outside the Simi-Thousand Oaks area, less drastic but similar events have 
occurred. Much of the remaining rangeland is held by land companies who 
plan future development. In a report prepared by the Ventura County 
Planning Department (1970), it was estimated that if current county and 
city policies are continued, in the next 50 years the current 92,000 ha 
(227,000 acres) of open "developable" land in Ventura County will shrink to 
44,000 ha (109,000 acres). Little has happened in the ensuing 7 years to 
modify this prediction. 

The general decline of sheep in California is reflected in Ventura County by 
a reduction in numbers of perhaps 25% between 1950 and 1969. In that same 
period, range cattle decreased from about 30,000 to 20,000 (E. L. Bramhall, 
farm advisor, personal communication). Much of this decrease was in the 
Moorpark-Thousand Oaks-Simi region, the foraging area closest to the main 
nesting areas of the Sespe-Piru region. In western Kern County, the number 
of cattle increased somewhat in recent years, but improved handling has re- 
duced mortality so it is doubtful that the condor food situation has im- 
proved there (H. E. Thurber, personal communication). The future trend on 
the Tejon Ranch properties is expected to be toward fewer livestock, and 
more farming and other habitat-modifying uses. 

According to various local ranchers and farm advisors, most livestock 
losses in this area occur between September and February, with only scat- 
tered mortality through the spring and summer months. Most deer mor- 
tality occurs during the same period (Blong 1954), although there may be 
major die-offs at any time of year. Overall, it appears that condor food may 
still be adequate in the area in fall and winter, but it seems highly unlikely 
there is now enough food in spring and summer to sustain a large number of 
condors. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 



31 




Fig. 8. Feeding habitat used by Sespe-Sierra nonbreeding condors. 
Sespe-Sierra Nonbreeding Condors 

The foraging area of the Sespe-Sierra nonbreeding group of condors has 
been shrinking in recent years (Fig. 8). Citrus groves in Fresno and Tulare 
Counties have been extended several miles eastward into former rangeland. 
There has been a similar expansion of other farm crops in the area south and 
east of Bakersfield in Kern County. A trend toward dividing large ranch 
holdings into family "rancheros" of 8-16 ha (20-40 acres) is evident in Fresno 
County and southern Kern County. Although these small ranches remain as 
open space, they are of little value to condors because of related disturb- 
ances and a general lack of food, resulting from fewer livestock and more 
sanitary methods for the disposal of carcasses. 

As in other portions of the condors' range, summer is the season of lowest 
food supply. There are less livestock on the range than in fall and winter, and 
there is no major livestock mortality during summer. From April through 
early August, it appears the condors must forage widely for food. 



Possible Effects of Food Shortage 

Although condor food appears in short supply, particularly in summer, 
there is no evidence that condors are starving, or are likely to do so in the 



32 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

near future. If, as seems reasonable, a condor requires 1 kg (2.2 pounds) of 
food per day, a population of 50 condors requires 18,000 kg (39,600 pounds) 
of food per year. Assuming condors obtain only 23 kg (50 pounds) of food 
from the average ungulate carcass (and many carcasses provide much more), 
only 720 carcasses will be required per year (60 per month). There are cer- 
tainly many more than that available, although harder to find at some 
seasons and in some areas. 

Besides causing actual starvation, inadequate food can cause birds not to 
breed at all, to defer breeding to an older age, to nest intermittently, or to 
nest unsuccessfully. 



Failure to Breed 

Immelmann (1971) stated that much circumstantial and some experimental 
evidence exists for the importance of nutrition in spermatogenesis and 
oogenesis in birds. Apparently, the reproductive function is a physiological 
luxury in time of food lack, and is then curtailed in favor of specific survival 
needs (Assenmacher 1973). Food, visually or physiologically, acts as a re- 
leaser for the breeding cycle. For example, wood storks (Mycteria americana) 
fail to breed if fish are not available at certain optimum levels (Kahl 1964). 
The reproductive cycle of long-tailed jaegers (Stercorarius longicaudus) may 
stop if food supply fails (Drury 1960), and some African birds of prey appar- 
ently fail to breed if they cannot find sufficient food at the start of the breed- 
ing season (Brown 1953). In some instances, if the normal food intake of the 
domestic chicken is reduced 25%, gonad activity almost ceases (Marshall 
1961). 

A limited food supply and the effects of social dominance may result in 
nonbreeding by some members of a bird population. Most populations have 
a hierarchy or "peck order" that ensures dominant members will fare better 
than those lower in the order (Davis 1952; Wynne-Edwards 1962). If food is 
scarce, only the most aggressive birds will eat, which has been shown in 
populations of griffon vultures (Houston 1971), and Marabou storks (Lep- 
toptilos crumeniferus; Kahl 1966), and has been suggested for various sea- 
birds (Ashmole 1971). 

If an inordinate amount of time is required to find food, there may not be 
enough time, energy, or inclination left for reproductive activity. For 
example, royal penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus) have only one nesting 
area and a limited nesting season. Although the ocean as a whole has ade- 
quate food, "there are obvious limits to foodfinding time and foraging dis- 
tances beyond which breeding success is impossible" (Carrick 1972). 

Finally, lack of food near nests may indirectly arrest breeding. Although 
traditional ties to breeding areas are very strong, continued lack of food 
sometimes forces populations to desert favored areas, permanently or tem- 
porarily (Lack 1937; Marshall 1951; Brown 1953). Adequate food may be the 
releasing stimulus of breeding activity, but the nest site may function simi- 
larly. If lack of food in one area forces birds to move into another area with- 
out adequate nest sites, reproduction might not take place (Lehrman 1959; 
Marshall 1961; Immelmann 1973). 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 33 

It appears that food in the vicinity of the Sespe-Piru nesting areas may be 
inadequate to stimulate the reproductive function in some condors. Obser- 
vations of condors feeding indicate there is a well-defined "peck order," with 
certain individuals and pairs dominating carcasses to the almost complete 
exclusion of others. General scarcity of food requires that condors spend 
long periods foraging, so there may be insufficient time for both foraging 
and reproduction. 

I also suspect that food scarcity is the cause of an overall decrease in 
condor use of the Sespe-Piru nesting area during all seasons, and that this is 
inhibiting productivity. In the 1940's the area supported winter populations 
of over 30 condors, and 8-10 condors were seen regularly in mid-summer 
(Koford 1953). During the early 1960's, high winter counts included about 20 
condors (Miller et al. 1965); summer observations of up to 4 birds together 
were common (U.S. Forest Service patrolman reports). Since 1965, highest 
winter counts have been of 11-13 condors, and summer records seldom in- 
clude more than 2 birds together. Some of the decline in use is due to de- 
crease in size of the total condor population, but the declines are not compa- 
rable in size or timing. It appears that most condors have shifted their winter 
quarters from the Sespe-Piru area to the mountains of southern Kern 
County, where a substantial food supply still exists in fall and winter. The 
traditional move into the nesting area at the start of the breeding season no 
longer occurs. There are few sites in Kern County that are comparable to 
known nesting habitat, even though feeding and roosting habitat is excel- 
lent much of the year. Stimulation to breed may occur only in the presence of 
typical condor nesting habitat. 

Deferral of Breeding and Intermittent Breeding 

Deferred breeding beyond normal minimum reproductive age has been 
shown to be a function of both nutrition and competition. As examples, in 
seabirds (Ashmole 1971), griffon vultures (Houston 1971), Canada geese and 
trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator; Palmer 1972), and pied flycatchers 
(Ficedula hypoleuca; von Haartman 1972), younger, inexperienced birds 
cannot successfully compete with established pairs for limited food supplies. 
In mammals such as the black bear (Ursus americanus) and Odocoileus deer, 
there is a direct relationship between minimum breeding age and nutrition; 
animals from food-shortage areas breed initially at an older age (Klein 1970; 
Jonkel and Cowan 1971; Robinette et al. 1973). 

Breeding intervals greater than the normal biological limits may result if 
food is inadequate (e.g., Jonkel and Cowan [1971] relate nutritional levels to 
frequency of Utters in the black bear). Condor food supply appears low 
enough that there may be deferred or irregular breeding, but minimum 
breeding ages and the reproductive performance of individual pairs are un- 
known. There is some evidence that the long period of juvenile dependency 
that often keeps condors from nesting every year (Koford 1953) is environ- 
mentally, rather than physiologically, controlled. That the species can lay 
eggs in successive years has been shown with captive condors, and is sug- 
gested by several instances when an egg was found in a nest from which one 
had been removed the previous year (Koford 1953). Dependence of the imma- 



34 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

ture into the year following hatching is usually not due to its physical condi- 
tion (it can fly to and from feeding areas with its parents by the end of the 
hatching year), but is the result of social pressure. Young birds cannot com- 
pete successfully at a carcass with either adults or older young, so adults 
must eat for their offspring as well as for themselves. Apparently variations 
in food supply do not change actual growth and development rates of young 
birds (Houston 1971; Ricklefs 1973), but if food is plentiful enough to allow 
young to feed unmolested at an earlier age, adults might begin a new repro- 
ductive cycle the year following successful nesting. That this may occur is 
suggested by the fledging of four condors from one nest cliff in four consecu- 
tive years, 1966-69 (F.C. Sibley, unpublished reports). This site is isolated 
from other nesting areas, and few condors use nearby feeding areas. Al- 
though there is no certainty that the same pair was involved each year, the 
site tenacity of individuals is generally well known among birds (Broley 
1947; Austin 1949; Herbert and Herbert 1965; Coulson 1966; Brown 1972) 
and more than two adults are seldom seen anywhere near this particular 
nest site. The only obvious difference between this and other nest areas is an 
abundant nearby food supply and very little competition from other con- 
dors. 

Unsuccessful Breeding Efforts 

Inadequate food is known to reduce fertility in birds (King 1973) and mam- 
mals (Klein 1970; Robinette et al. 1973). Better conditioning promoted by 
good nutrition reduces mortality of young mammals (Klein 1970; Robinette 
et al. 1973) and probably of birds. Additionally, loss of eggs through chilling 
during long food-searching absences by the parents, or loss of nestlings to 
starvation, are possible food-related occurrences. 

Currently, there is no evidence of food scarcity or any other factor reduc- 
ing the success of nesting attempts. The few nests started in recent years 
usually have fledged young. 

Food shortages may affect condors in less direct ways than those de- 
scribed above. As foraging habitat diminishes, condors are forced to congre- 
gate in fewer areas and in larger groups. This increases their vulnerability to 
shooting and other man-related mortality. Also, food shortage may cause 
mortality or reduced productivity under stress by mobilizing pesticides 
stored in the body. For instance, DDT may accumulate in body fat with no 
immediate toxic effects, and be gradually eliminated by normal bodily pro- 
cesses. However, if the system of the bird is stressed as during decreased 
food intake, stored fat is utilized and DDT is released in harmful — some- 
times lethal — doses (Stickel 1969; Van Velzen et al. 1972). Pesticide rela- 
tionships will be discussed later. 

Disturbance 

The reaction of condors to human activity varies with the duration and in- 
tensity of disturbance, whether it is noise or physical presence, and may in- 
volve flying, roosting, feeding, or nesting behavior. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 35 



Flying Condors 

Flying condors show little fear of man and will often approach closely. 
They may even glide to a person walking along an exposed ridge, or sitting 
in an open area, and circle over him. Apparently the more conspicuous a 
person is and the more commotion he makes, the more likely a condor is to 
approach. Whistling and arm-waving may prolong the time the bird remains 
overhead (Sibley 1969). 

Condors in flight do not avoid areas of human occupancy. I have seen 
them regularly over the oil fields near the Sespe Condor Sanctuary, and a 
regularly used condor flight lane follows Interstate Highway 5 through the 
Tehachapi Mountains. Condors are occasionally reported flying over 
Bakersfield, San Jose, and other cities and towns. Although there may be a 
limit to the amount of ground disturbance a flying condor will tolerate, most 
traditional flight lanes will probably be traveled as long as related nesting, 
roosting, and feeding areas are usable. 



Roosting Birds 

Condors usually return to traditional roosting areas each afternoon. At 
many of these roost sites, the same trees and rock ledges have been used for 
at least 35 years, while nearby perches that appear identical remain unoccu- 
pied. 

Roosting condors are readily disturbed by either noise or movement, and 
disturbances late in the day may prevent roosting that night (Koford 1953). 
However, reaction to disturbance varies. On 31 May 1972, I walked to 
within 9 m (30 feet) of a year-old condor, took photographs, then entered a 
nearby bird blind. The young bird sat on the snag for another 30 min, depart- 
ing then only because an adult condor forced it from its perch. In contrast, 
on 13 January 1970, movements of one person along a trail over 0.4 km (0.25 
mile) from a roosting condor apparently caused it to change its perch several 
times and eventually leave the vicinity. Two condors roosting in a snag on 
19 August 1971 showed no reaction to a sharp sonic boom, yet flew hastily 
from the tree when a fixed-wing aircraft passed within 300 m (1,000 feet) of 
them. A startling sonic boom on 7 October 1971 caused three adult condors 
to hurriedly leave their roost area. 

Occasional major disturbances will not cause condors to abandon regu- 
larly used roosts, and they may adapt to general low-level disturbance. A 
summer roosting area in Tulare County is less than 1 km (0.6 mile) from 
radio towers, a fire lookout, and summer homes, yet is occupied by condors 
almost every night from May to September. However, noise levels are low 
and few people actually approach within 0.4 km (0.25 mile) of roost trees. 
Some levels of noise and activity will cause condors to permanently leave an 
area; two roosting areas were abandoned near the Sespe Condor Sanctuary. 
One area, on the west side of Hopper Ridge 1 km (0.6 mile) north of Hopper 
Mountain was regularly used by condors in 1939 and 1946. There was some 
disturbance in the area, including an occasional automobile being driven 
within 50-100 m (150-300 feet) of the site. Now there is a battery of oil wells 



36 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 




Fig. 9. Oil field development at the edge of the Sespe Condor Sanctuary. Condors 
formerly roosted along the ridge immediately behind the pumps. (Photo by Sanford 
Wilbur) 



1 km (0.6 mile) away in line of sight of the roost trees, and there is almost 
constant, but usually low-level, noise and oil-related activity. Condors no 
longer roost on the west side of Hopper Ridge in that area, although they 
continue to roost within 2 km (1.2 miles) of the oil operation where roosts are 
shielded topographically from sight and most sound of the oil fields (Fig. 9). 

A second roost site was located in cliffs of Pole Creek, about 2 km (1.2 
miles) southwest of Hopper Mountain. Condors were seen there regularly in 
1940 and 1941, and the regular presence of a very young condor one year 
suggests it may have been a nest site as well. There was a lightly-traveled 
farm road within 1.2 km (0.75 mile) of the roost, and some limited oil explora- 
tion had occurred about 1.5 km (1 mile) away. Now a major portion of the 
Sespe Oil Field occupies the area within 1.5 km (1 mile) of the roost, and 
there are producing oil wells within 1 km (0.6 mile). It has not been used by 
condors for many years. 

No one was systematically documenting condor observations on Hopper 
Mountain during 1950-65, so it is not possible to show a positive cause-and- 
effect relationship between oil field development and abandonment of these 
roosts. However, lack of use at these sites, contrasted with continued condor 
occupation of traditional roosts just beyond the influence of the oil fields, 
suggests such a relationship. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 37 

Feeding Birds 

Condors normally feed in relatively isolated areas and usually leave if ap- 
proached within a few hundred meters (about 1,000 feet) by vehicles or 
people (Koford 1953). They seldom feed on animals killed on highways or in 
areas of regular disturbance. Koford (1953), however, recorded them feeding 
within 600 m (500 yards) of an occupied ranch house, and on several occa- 
sions I have observed them feeding within a few hundred meters (1,000 feet) 
of well-traveled roads. 

Startling noises sometimes frighten condors from food; on 1 May 1969 a 
sonic boom caused four condors to fly up and the remaining two to run some 
distance from a carcass. On 2 May 1969 a sonic boom caused condors to fly 
from a carcass briefly, but a second boom elicited only a mild startle reaction 
(heads up, looking around; F. C. Sibley, unpublished field notes). One condor 
and six turkey vultures I observed at a carcass on 3 August 1972 showed no 
apparent reaction to a moderately loud sonic boom. 

Condors have abandoned feeding sites once used regularly, but most such 
sites have a greatly diminished food supply as well as increased human dis- 
turbance. Probably the greater and more regular the disturbance, the less 
likely condors are to feed in the area. 

Nesting Condors 

Sibley (1969) plotted the location of condor nest sites in relation to roads, 
trails, and oil field activity. He found that, even though apparently suitable 
nest sites existed closer, no occupied nest sites were located nearer to 
various developments than the following: 

1. Lightly used dirt roads — 1.3 km (0.8 mile) when the site was un- 
shielded from sight and sound of the road, occasionally closer (0.8 km, 
0.5 mile) when completely shielded. 

2. Regularly used dirt roads — 2 km (1.2 miles) when unshielded, closest 
shielded about 1.2 km (0.7 mile). 

3. Paved road — 3.5 km (2.2 miles). 

4. Oil wells — 3.7 km (2.3 miles) when nest was in view of the well, 2 km 
(1.2 miles) when shielded from sight and most sound. 

Both regularity and magnitude of disturbance are involved in discourag- 
ing condor nesting, as nests may be located nearer to lightly used roads than 
to regular travel routes or oil operations. Condors have nested very near 
intermittently used foot trails. It appears that the greater the disturbance, 
either in frequency or noise level, the less likely condors are to nest nearby. 
Since 1965 nests are known to have hatched successfully 0.8 km (0.5 mile) 
from an infrequently used administrative road, 1.3 km (0.8 mile) from a regu- 
larly used dirt road, 3.5 km (2.2 miles) from a paved highway, and 3.5 km (2.2 
miles) from an operating oil well. Only 2 of the 10 nest sites used since 1966 
are closer to any road than 1.6 km (1 mile). One of these, successful four 
times in a row, has not been used since 1969. Human disturbance at that site 
has increased appreciably in recent years, and may be the cause of current 



38 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

disuse, although there are other possibilities, such as death of one or both 
members of the resident pair. 

Some nest sites used in past years now appear abandoned. Reasons for dis- 
use are seldom obvious, but increased disturbance locally is a possible cause 
in some instances. As suggested for roost sites, I think that there is a maxi- 
mum level of disturbance that condors will tolerate at a nest site. This un- 
doubtedly varies with location, especially as related to topography, but it 
appears likely that condors usually will not nest within 2.4 km (1.5 miles) of 
regularly traveled roads or similar activity (Sibley 1969). 

Even if nest sites are not permanently abandoned due to disturbance, 
noise and human activity may effectively thwart nesting success. Peregrine 
falcons subjected to repeated disturbance are thought to build up "some 
sort of cumulative nervousness" that may eventually lead to nest failure 
(Herbert and Herbert 1965). Bald eagles will stay near traditional nest sites 
in spite of considerable disturbance, but may not breed (Broley 1947). 
"Fear" reactions of various types are thought to inhibit breeding in birds, 
perhaps by curtailing ovulation (Marshall 1952, 1961). 

It has been suggested (Moll 1969; Oehme 1969) that sonic booms may 
addle eggs and kill embryos, but laboratory tests indicate this is unlikely 
(Memphis State University 1971). Sudden loud noises have been known to 
frighten adult birds from the nest, however, causing them to break eggs or 
knock eggs or young from the nest (Ames and Mersereau 1964; Hagar 1969). 
Activity near nests has caused young raptors to fly prematurely, which 
sometimes resulted in their death or injury (Grier 1969; White 1969; Garber 
1972). 

Condors may not abandon nests despite repeated disturbance during the 
nesting cycle. Observations were made near one nest on 107 days during one 
nesting season, and the condors were disturbed at times by whistling, hand- 
clapping, and other human activity (Koford 1953). The young bird fledged 
successfully. Koford (1953) also reported instances where men actually en- 
tered the nest cave while nesting was taking place, with no apparent detri- 
mental effects. However, broken eggs and dead chicks have been found at 
nests, and human disturbance has been implicated in some of these losses. 
For example, one nest visitor startled an incubating condor, which knocked 
its egg from the nest as it hurriedly departed (Sibley 1969). Two other 
examples that did not result in egg loss, but that show the potential, are also 
recorded by Sibley (1969). In the first, an incubating condor was startled by 
a man nearby, and in its haste to get up it kicked the egg several inches 
forward. On another occasion, a condor sleeping in a pothole virtually "ex- 
ploded" from the cave when a sonic boom occurred, and it appeared visibly 
agitated for the next hour. Sibley (unpublished field notes) on two occasions 
was inside small nest-type caves when sonic booms occurred. He found the 
experience very unpleasant, and experienced considerable ringing in his 
ears. 

Repeated disturbance of condors at nests might cause egg loss through 
chilling, or inadequate feeding of the young bird might result (Koford 1953). 
In addition, repeated disturbance during courtship might frustrate mating 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR. 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 39 



attempts. Sibley (1969) watched a courting pair of condors obviously dis- 
turbed by airplane traffic overhead. Each time a plane was heard, the dis- 
playing bird would fold its wings and look toward the sound, then begin 
again. If such interruptions were repeated regularly, courtship and subse- 
quent reproduction might be inhibited. 



Other Factors Possibly Affecting Productivity 

Weather and Climate 

Annual weather patterns and long-term climatic changes have been sug- 
gested as causes of reproductive variability, but the relationships are not 
well understood. High temperatures are known to stimulate egg laying in 
some instances (Davis 1955), but are thought to retard breeding in others 
(Sharma 1970). High humidity appears best for Indian white-backed vulture 
(Gyps bengalensis) reproduction (Sharma 1970). Humidity may also be im- 
portant for the California condor, because Koford (1953) suggested that 
failure of three condor eggs was possibly due to the "dryness and coldness of 
the spring." 

Within the current range of the condor, temperature and humidity vary 
considerably between individual nest sites every year. Certain years may be 
better or worse than others, but there is no obvious correlation between 
weather and nest success. The Northern Hemisphere has experienced a grad- 
ual warming trend since the late 1890's (Kalela 1949; Critchfield 1960: 
Nelson 1969), but the actual change in temperature has been small and 
variable from year to year (Critchfield 1960). It does not seem correlated 
with changes in condor reproduction since the early 1960's. 

Minimum Population Density 

Each population seems to have an optimum size at which it thrives best. If 
it falls below some minimum size, passing a certain "point of resistance" 
(Leopold 1933), it frequently becomes extinct (Allee et al. 1949). The me- 
chanics of this minimum density have been described both genetically and 
socially. When a population has a small effective breeding number, certain 
genes become fixed and others lost. The population loses genetic variability, 
and certain nonadaptive or deleterious traits may become fixed in the popu- 
lation (Koford 1953). Socially, certain group activities seem necessary, in 
some instances, to stimulate and synchronize individual reproductive ac- 
tivity (Darling 1938). Also, a certain population level is necessary to insure 
prospective mates finding one another. For example, the population density 
of the rhinoceros on the Indian subcontinent is so low that it is unlikely that 
two rhinoceroses of opposite sex will meet and breed since they are very rare 
and the male's period of sexual activity is very short (Slobodkin 1961). 



40 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

The genetic makeup of the California condor population is unknown, but 
applying the general rules of plant and animal breeding, it appears that the 
inbreeding coefficient may well be high enough to adversely affect reproduc- 
tion (R. W. Allard, personal communication). Fortunately, species in which 
population size has never been large are frequently more resistant to in- 
breeding than other species, presumably because their genetic system 
evolved under some low level of inbreeding. That the whooping crane (Grus 
americana) population was able to increase even after numbers had fallen 
below 20 birds (McNulty 1966) is cause for hope that condor genetic makeup 
has not been irreparably affected. The cranes, however, continued to 
produce at a favorable rate even at the population's lowest point; the con- 
dors have not. 

Although condor numbers, disparities in sex ratio, and isolation of sub- 
populations may combine to limit the number of pairs that can be formed, 
the effects of social stimulation are not so evident. Not all species require 
communal stimulation to release breeding behavior (MacRoberts and Mac- 
Roberts 1972), and the condor appears to be one that does not. Condors nest- 
ing successfully in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties have been 
completely isolated from other nesting condors, and seldom even join with 
others for feeding or roosting. In the Sespe Condor Sanctuary, I have ob- 
served pairs courting in company with other condors, but have never seen 
evidence that other pairs were stimulated by the display. Koford (1953) re- 
ports a similar lack of interaction between courting birds and others in the 
group. 

Senescent Adults 

If productivity ceases or declines with age, then a preponderance of old 
birds may not be breeding. Hickey (1942) suggested this as a cause of repro- 
ductive failure in peregrine falcons and California quail (Lophortyx californi- 
cus). It has also been hypothesized that, even if age does not bring sterility 
in peregrines, it may result in less success due to smaller clutch size, less in- 
tensive brooding, weakened attachment to the nest, and decreased capacity 
for finding food (Kleinstauber 1969). 

The few definite available records of duration of breeding in raptors indi- 
cate senescence may not be a significant problem. Wild peregrines are 
known to have reproduced when at least 18 and 20 years of age, and a golden 
eagle in captivity laid eggs until it was 30 years old (Herbert and Herbert 
1965). A captive California condor laid eggs until 32 years old (Koford 1953). 
However, if aging is a problem, it would be most likely in a species like the 
condor where individuals normally reach advanced age. 

Insufficient Nest Sites 

Koford (1953) lists the main physical requirements of a condor nest site as 
a cavity, usually in rock but in one instance in a tree, with: (1) suitable adult 
roosting perches nearby; (2) fairly easy approach from the air; (3) space 
below for taking off; (4) protection from storms, wind, and direct sun; (5) 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 41 

space enough inside to hold two full-grown adults; (6) a level, sandy spot on 
which to lay the egg; and (7) perches nearby for the young bird after it leaves 
the nest. Adding these requirements to the need for relative isolation, and a 
strong preference for traditionally u> ed nest sites, it becomes apparent that 
there are only a few areas where condors are likely to nest. Despite these re- 
quirements, there seems to be no current shortage of nest sites within the 
limited habitat available. 

California condors apparently do not defend a large nesting territory. Al- 
tercations between nesting birds and other condors are seldom seen, even 
though large numbers of nonbreeding birds have roosted close to active 
nests (Koford 1953), and active nest sites have been located within 1.6 km 
(1 mile) of one another. In 1946 and again in 1967, three active nests were 
known within a 7.75-km 2 (3-square-mile) area (F. C. Sibley, unpublished field 
notes). That particular area still appears physically suitable for that concen- 
tration of birds, and there are many other historically used sites within the 
current range of existing subpopulations that are not now occupied. If, as 
seems likely, the condor does not require more nesting territory than the 0.8 
to 1.6 km (0.5 to 1 mile) estimated for other large raptors (Broley 1947; 
Vernon 1965; Grier 1969), there should be physical space for many more 
pairs to breed. Location of food near nest sites may, of course, be limiting. 

Pesticides and Air Pollu tion 

Poisoning has probably been a minor cause of California condor mortality 
but pesticides and other noxious substances are known to react in sublethal 
fashion in some species, reducing productivity and impairing individual 
vigor (Stickel 1975). Organochlorine compounds can cause death if weight 
loss resulting from reduced food intake, reproductive activity, or injury 
causes lethal mobilization of chemical residues stored in body fat (Van 
Velzenetal. 1972). 

The effects of pesticidal contamination on California condors are un- 
known, but evidence is accumulating that there may be adverse relation- 
ships. 

Body Residues 

An immature condor that died after colliding with a power line in May 
1965 had visceral fat concentrations of 18 ppm p.p'DDT and 30 ppm 
p.p'DDE (Hunt 1969). The bird had a full crop, was in good condition, and 
weighed a normal 8.74 kg (19.25 pounds; California Department of Fish and 
Game, unpublished report). 

A second immature condor, found dead and considerably decayed in 
November 1974, had leg muscle concentrations of approximately 50 ppm 
p.p'DDE, plus much smaller amounts of other organochlorines (Patuxent 
Wildlife Research Center, unpublished report). 

An adult female condor died in November 1976 after suffering a gunshot 
wound in the wing. At death it weighed only 6.04 kg (13.3 pounds). A sample 
of flesh contained 12 ppm p.p'DDE, and fatty tissue had 105 ppm p.p'DDE 



42 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



plus low amounts of several other organochlorines (Patuxent Wildlife Re- 
search Center, unpublished report). 

Species differ markedly in their reaction to pesticides, so no firm conclu- 
sions can be drawn concerning the significance of these levels in the condor. 
In the first instance, the levels are relatively low, since residues in fat in a 
bird in good condition generally will be 10-20 times those in the total body. 
The levels in the adult bird were higher, but perhaps not unusual or unex- 
pected for a bird that was in such poor nutritional condition. However, in 
comparison with other species, it seems possible that the concentrations 
found in the 1974 immature bird might have been enough to adversely affect 
reproduction in a mature bird or even cause death if fat mobilization oc- 
curred. 



Eggshell Changes 

The difference in pre- 1944 mean condor eggshell thickness (0.79 ± 
0.02 mm) and post-1963 thickness (0.54 ± 0.02 mm) is 31.1% (L. F. Kiff, 
D. B. Peakall, S. R. Wilbur, and R. L. Garrett, in preparation). This differ- 
ence is both biologically and statistically highly significant. The thickest 
eggshell in the post-1963 sample was 23% thinner than the pre-1944 mean; 
the thinnest post-1963 specimens were 56.9% thinner than normal. Thinning 
of 20% or more is likely to result in reproductive failure and population 
decline (Stickel 1975). In nearly every study of eggshell thinning, DDE has 
been thought to be the major cause (Stickel 1975). 

In addition to thinning, California condor eggshells collected since 1963 
show abnormal internal structure. In photographs taken with a scanning 
electron microscope, a decreased porosity and an unusual compactness are 
evident (L. F. Kiff, D. B. Peakall, S. R. Wilbur, and R. L. Garrett, in prep- 
aration). This structural pathology is similar to that produced in eggs con- 
taminated with chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (McFarland et al. 1971). 
Most of the post- 1963 eggs on which measurements were made were found 
broken in the nest. 

Although significant contamination is suggested by the above, a logical 
source of contamination has not been discovered. In general, concentrations 
of pesticides in condor food items are believed to be low. It may be that vul- 
tures metabolize pesticides differently than other groups of birds, resulting 
in greater concentrations. Turkey vulture eggshells have not thinned as 
much as condor eggs have, but they are 11-12% thinner than those collected 
before 1947 (S. R. Wilbur, in preparation). Andean condors collected in Peru 
had much higher concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons than other 
local species including the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), a species 
known to concentrate pesticides (D. W. Anderson, personal communication). 
In contrast, golden eagles, with a food source similar to condors, have shown 
no significant eggshell thinning (Hickey and Anderson 1968) or bodily con- 
centration of pesticides (Reichel et al. 1969). 

Effects of air pollution on birds have not been examined, but some detri- 
mental effects have been found among mammals (Statewide Air Pollution 
Research Center 1973). The very rapid flow rate of air through the complex 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 43 

system in the body of the bird in flight suggests the possibility of unde- 
sirably high exposure. No monitoring of organochlorines or other air pollu- 
tants has been done in the vicinity of condor nests and roosts, but topo- 
graphical and meteorological conside-ations suggest that air pollution levels 
may be high in these sites (P. C. White, personal communication). 

Preservation 

The California condor is immediately threatened with extinction, so 
threatened that the future of the species may well be decided within the next 
few years. If production fails to increase, and if annual mortality remains 
constant or increases over current levels, the species that has defied so many 
predictions of doom will at last disappear. The difference between the past 
and present is simply this: although the condor population has been declin- 
ing gradually for many years, until recently numbers were high enough and 
production great enough that production deficits were low and the decrease 
was slow. This is no longer true. Currently production is low in a very small 
population whose average age increases yearly. Major losses due to old age 
could occur at any time, further reducing the population's potential for sur- 
vival. 

Although recommendations have been made for preservation of the 
condor (Koford 1953; Miller et al. 1965; Mallette 1970; Carrier 1971), and 
many have been implemented, the condor continues to decline. Past action 
was not wrong (had it not been for protection and management accom- 
plished to date, the situation could be much worse), but it was not enough. 
While one problem was being treated, other factors continued to operate 
against the population. A comprehensive effort to attack all possible limit- 
ing factors simultaneously has been urgently needed. 

The California Condor Recovery Plan 

Steps to achieve this overall approach to condor preservation were taken 
with the preparation and implementation of a California condor "recovery 
plan" (California Condor Recovery Team 1974), the prime objective of which 
is stated as: 

To maintain a population of at least 50 California Condors, well 
distributed throughout their 1974 range, with an average natality 
of at least 4 young per year, and with the lowest possible mor- 
tality. 
The basic tenets of the Plan are: (1) if condors are well distributed geo- 
graphically so that all are not subject to the same local limiting factors and 
catastrophes; and (2) if annual production equals or slightly exceeds ex- 
pected annual mortality rates, then a small population of California condors 
can continue to survive. The species would still be "endangered," but with 
continued intensive management, could become stabilized. 

The Recovery Plan recognizes three principal needs of the condor popula- 
tion: adequate nesting sites, suitable roosts, and feeding habitat with ade- 
quate food. These must be available to each subpopulation of condors, and 



44 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



must be geographically and seasonally located to accommodate traditional 
condor use patterns. 

Nesting Requirements 

All nest sites known active within the past 20 years are on National Forest 
lands, and a plan for their protection has been prepared and implemented by 
the U.S. Forest Service (Carrier 1971). Two basic objectives are: (1) to re- 
strict all motorized activity and blasting within 2.4 km (1.5 miles) of each 
condor nest site; and (2) to locate trails and trail camps out of direct line-of- 
sight of nest sites within a 0.8-km (0.5-mile) distance, and to continue restric- 
tion of the Sespe and Sisquoc Condor sanctuaries to all public use. 

In general, the Forest Service has authority to manage National Forest 
lands for endangered species. However, administration of mining and min- 
eral resources rests with the U.S. Department of the Interior. Restriction of 
such activities requires action by the Bureau of Land Management. Expand- 
ing oil development is now a major threat to nesting habitat. 

Aircraft activity in the vicinity of nests may discourage condor use and 
may indirectly result in nest failure. A 914-m (3,000-foot) terrain clearance 
over nesting areas is now recommended on military and civilian flight maps, 
and the air space over the Sespe Condor Sanctuary is legally closed (Section 
10501.5, California Fish and Game Code). 

The value of all restrictions is increased by an active, well-rounded pro- 
gram of education, patrol, and law enforcement. Educational emphasis 
should center on the plight of the bird, and the justification for restricted 
use of nesting areas. Patrol will reduce the potential for violation of closures, 
and diligent law enforcement will act to deter further trespass in closed 
areas. As the condor requires the entire year to complete its reproductive 
cycle, restrictions should be in effect at all times. 

Condors cannot breed without adequate nest sites, but production is ap- 
parently being limited by some other factor or factors. Inadequate food sup- 
ply has been shown to result in reproductive inactivity in many species, and 
is believed to figure significantly in the decline of carrion-eating birds in 
South Africa (Houston 1971), Spain (de la Fuente 1964), and elsewhere. Sup- 
plemental feeding programs for vulturine birds have been initiated in Spain, 
France, Sardinia, and Austria (Bijleveld 1974). Our own experiences with an 
experimental feeding program for California condors show that condors will 
feed at bait stations without congregating in unnatural numbers or losing 
their "wildness" (Wilbur et al. 1974). Such feeding should be continued on a 
yearlong basis as long as there is any possibility that it is worthwhile. 

There is enough evidence of chemical contamination of condors and their 
habitat to warrant a thorough evaluation of the effects of pesticides and air 
pollutants. The identification and removal of sources of contamination 
should be given high priority, as should laboratory studies of the effects of 
toxic chemicals on vulture reproduction and well-being. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 45 



Roosting and Feeding 

Roosts are located on National Forests, and other Federal, State, and pri- 
vate lands. The U.S. Forest Service objective for protection of roosts is to 
eliminate all human activity within at least 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of the roosts 
(Carrier 1971). The same basic objective should be pursued for condor roosts 
on non-Forest Service properties. 

Most feeding areas are on private lands. The basic need is to keep ade- 
quate food available in a relatively disturbance-free environment at those 
times of year that condors frequent any given area. A yearlong food supply 
is needed near nesting areas; elsewhere, requirements are seasonal. Preser- 
vation of food supply and feeding terrain near well-established nests and 
roosts should receive greatest emphasis. This may require outright purchase 
of key parcels, cooperative land-use agreements, and supplemental feeding. 
County zoning and land-use restrictions can often be made to favor the 
condor if they maintain open space and rangeland agriculture. 

Protection from Mortality 

Shooting, disruption of nesting activity, and possibly poisoning have the 
greatest potential for causing condor mortality. Mortality at nests will be 
limited by implementation of nest protection measures. Potential for shoot- 
ing losses can be reduced by increased education, patrol, and law enforce- 
ment, and by firearms regulations and restrictions in certain condor congre- 
gation areas. The condor is legally protected by State and Federal law. The 
threat from toxicants can be reduced through cooperative planning of ani- 
mal control programs, limiting extent, location, and timing to have least po- 
tential impact on condors. 

Full and immediate implementation of the Recovery Plan seems to me to 
be a minimum requirement for perpetuation of the California condor. 
Without that, habitat for the condor will contij ue to shrink in size and qual- 
ity, further limiting survival potential. Although much effort has been di- 
rected toward preserving the condor during 1965-76, there are no signs of in- 
creased stability within the population. In fact, a significant decrease in pro- 
duction has occurred, and total numbers have declined during the last 10 
years. I think that it is unlikely that the California condor can be per- 
petuated by only those relatively conventional procedures outlined in the 
Recovery Plan. Without interrupting action on the Recovery Plan, I recom- 
mend concurrent implementation of two additional measures: (1) establish- 
ment of new nesting areas, and (2) captive propagation. 

New Nesting Areas 

There are enough suitable nest sites for many more pairs of condors than 
have nested recently, but as mentioned earlier, condors have begun to con- 
gregate in an area well removed from traditional nesting habitat. One objec- 
tive of supplemental feeding was to maintain and reinforce existing ties be- 
tween breeding and nonbreeding areas. So far, this has not occurred. An al- 



46 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



ternative is to provide nest sites in the currently favored area in Kern 
County, an area that seems well adapted to yearlong condor occupation 
except that it lacks cliffs and caves for nesting. Structures made of artificial 
stone, such as are commonly used in captive animal displays, could be 
erected in isolated canyons in the Tehachapi Mountains away from most 
human access. Nest boxes have apparently not been used by vultures and 
might not be accepted by condors, but their provision would give the popula- 
tion one more option for survival. 

Captive Propagation 

At best, recovery of a totally free-living California condor population will 
be very slow. One method of accelerating population growth involves cap- 
turing several pairs of condors, holding them in captivity for breeding, and 
subsequently releasing their progeny to the wild. The condor's long period of 
sexual immaturity and inherently low reproductive rate are liabilities in 
such a program, but condors appear to do well in captivity and, barring acci- 
dent or disease, can be expected to live many years. California condors have 
never been produced in captivity, but the Andean condor, in many respects 
much like the California species, has bred regularly in captivity (Janda 1939; 
Portielje 1949; Lint 1960; Olivares 1963; Poulsen 1963; Dekker 1967; Erick- 
son 1974). Griffon vultures, similar in size and overall breeding characteris- 
tics to the California condor, have also bred and reared young in captivity 
(Bouillault 1970). In considering the opportunity to accelerate condor pro- 
duction, experiences with Andean condors at San Diego Zoo (San Diego, 
California) are especially noteworthy. In 10 years, one pair of Andean 
condors produced nine young, eight of which survived (Lint 1960). Rearing 
young away from the parents and hatching some eggs in incubators encour- 
aged the adults to renest more often than they would have otherwise. A wild 
pair could have produced a maximum of only five young in the same time 
period. 

Although capturing condors will reduce the size of the wild population, 
and might further reduce its breeding potential, apparently only a few pairs 
of condors are now responsible for the productivity of the entire population. 
Condor trapping could be timed and located to minimize the likelihood of 
capturing current breeders. Actual numbers in the wild would be reduced, 
but this would not necessarily reduce the reproductive potential of the popu- 
lation. 

Objectors to captive propagation cite the lack of results in reestablishing 
captive reared birds in the wild. Admittedly much more research is needed 
but current projects involving peregrine falcons, bald eagles (Haliaeetus 
leucocephalus), whooping cranes, Aleutian Canada geese, (Branta cana- 
densis leucoparela), and other endangered species have already produced 
results that are applicable to a California condor reestablishment program. 
Once Andean condor propagation techniques are perfected, release back to 
their native habitat is anticipated (Erickson 1974). All things considered, it 
seems likely that, by the time California condors are available for release to 
the wild, reestablishment procedures will have reached an advanced state. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 47 

Can the Condor Be Saved? 

Because the California condor has survived so many predictions of immi- 
nent extinction, it would be comforting to assume that the species will go on 
forever no matter what. Complacency is nurtured by the almost certainly 
false belief of some that condors have been rarer and in worse circumstances 
in the past than they are now. The reasoning goes that if they have "saved 
themselves" before, they can do it again. Actually, consideration of the 
species' reproductive potential and the known losses since the turn of the 
century must lead to the conclusion that significant gains in population size 
were not only unlikely, but were nearly impossible. 

McMillan (1968:42) stated that "there is considerable evidence that the 
entire species was close to extinction around 1908 . . . perhaps closer to ex- 
tinction that at any time before or after." The discussion does not include an 
estimate of the population size, but McMillan and co-workers estimated that 
there were only 40 condors in 1965 (Miller et al. 1965). If the population was 
as endangered in 1908 as it was in 1965, then there were probably no more 
than 40 birds and possibly fewer. If there were only 40 birds in 1908, and if 
Koford's (1953) estimate of 60 birds in 1950 was accurate, then the popula- 
tion increased by 50% in 42 years. In addition to production needed to keep 
the population size stable, an average addition of one new bird every 2 years 
would have been required. 

As discussed in the section on production, condors are probably not repro- 
ductively active until they are 8 or more years old. In a small population 
there are almost certainly uneven numbers of males and females. Because of 
the wide geographical range occupied by condors, probably not all condors 
have the opportunity to meet and mate. Finally, there may be adults in the 
population that have passed reproductive age. Considering all these factors, 
a population of 40 condors could include no more than five to six breeding 
pairs. Condors do not usually nest every year, so the highest annual produc- 
tion for so small a population would be two to three young. 

Koford (1953) estimated 15-20 subadult condors (i.e., those in various sub- 
adult plumages) in his population of 60. Considering that other condors were 
incapable of forming pairs for the reasons outlined above, there could have 
been about 15 adult pairs. Assuming biennial nesting, seven to eight nest- 
ings per year would have been possible. 

Starting with only two to three pairs laying eggs each year, population in- 
crease would have been slow initially. A possible progression would have 
been: 1908-21, three young per year produced; 1922-33, four young; 1934-40, 
five young; 1941-46, six young, and 1947-50, seven young. The maximum 
production at those rates would have been approximately 200 condors, but 
long-term "biological maximum" is never reached in a wild population. In 
the condor population, 50% success may be near the norm (F. C. Sibley, un- 
published progress reports). Assuming a more optimistic 75% nest success, 
only 150 condors would have been produced between 1908 and 1950. 

In that same 42-year period, a minimum of 17 condor eggs were taken 
from the wild, and a minimum of 55 condors died from various causes (Ap- 
pendix II). Actual loss is unknown, but Koford (1953) assumed 5 to 10% 
annual mortality for the California condor under natural conditions. If 



48 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

losses to accidents, old age, and other "natural" factors averaged 5% an- 
nually, then 100 condors would have died in addition to the unusually high 
human-caused losses during that period. A mortality of over 150 condors is 
almost certain, so no increase could have occurred. 

Much of the above is hypothetical, but based on what is known about 
condor history and population dynamics, the analysis is not unreasonable. 
Substituting other numbers and percentages will not change the conclusion 
that the California condor population does not have the capacity for signifi- 
cant increase now, and even more certainly did not have it during the early 
years of the 20th Century when mortality was abnormally high. 

I agree with Koford (1953) that the California condor is most pleasing 
symbolically and esthetically as a free-flying, self-perpetuating species, but 
each passing year brings more questions about its ability to survive without 
intensive management. Since the passing of the wild big-game herds and 
their replacement with livestock in the mid-1800's, the condor has been de- 
pendent on the activities of man, and "naturalness" has been relative. 
Nevertheless, the wildness that is left in the species is desirable and should 
be preserved. If the species can be saved, we should also be able to preserve 
the aura and tradition of condor and condor habitat. It is not necessary to 
sacrifice "wildness" for "management." 

The California condor is on the brink of extinction right now, and may dis- 
appear no matter what we do. If the species is to be saved, it must receive 
our most innovative attention as quickly as possible. 

Acknowledgments 

I have drawn freely on unpublished field notes and reports of F. C. Sibley. 
W. D. Carrier, U.S. Forest Service biologist, and J. C. Borneman, National 
Audubon Society naturalist, contributed many of the observations and 
concepts included here. R. C. Erickson, Assistant Director for Endangered 
Wildlife Research, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, supervised the proj- 
ect and offered useful advice and direction. Members of the California 
Condor Advisory Committee and Condor Recovery Team also offered direc- 
tion, particularly R. D. Mallette, California Department of Fish and Game, 
and R. C. Clement, National Audubon Society. L. J. Garrett, Patuxent li- 
brarian, provided published literature and helped to seek out obscure refer- 
ences. 

Several hundred individuals reported condor sightings during the course 
of the study, among them ranchers, birders, hikers, biologists, and fire-con- 
trol personnel. Employees of the U.S. Forest Service and California Depart- 
ment of Fish and Game provided the bulk of this information. Other re- 
porters who furnished an especially significant quantity of information are: 
E. Farnsworth (Glennville, California), C. Osborn and M. Stieginga (both of 
the California Division of Forestry), W. Fieguth (Tejon Ranch Company), 
and the late D. Smith (Santa Barbara, California). 

I am indebted to the following people who reviewed draft copies of this re- 
port, and offered suggestions for its improvement: J. C. Borneman, W. D. 
Carrier, R. C. Erickson, L. F. Kiff, C. B. Koford, R. D. Mallette, D. B. Mar- 
shall, H. M. Ohlendorf, F. C. Sibley, L. F. Stickel, and J. Verner. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 49 



References 



Allee, W. C, A. E. Emerson, O. Park, T. Park, and K. P. Schmidt. 1949. Principles of 

animal ecology. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia. 837 pp. 
Ames, P. L., and G. S. Mersereau. 1964. Some factors in the decline of the osprey in 

Connecticut. Auk 81(2):173-185. 
Anonymous. 1898. Notes on the taking of an egg of the California condor. Museum 

4(7):103. 
Anonymous. 1900. Two more eggs of California condor. Condor 2(3):60. 
Anonymous. 1905. Annual report of the National Association of Audubon Societies 

for 1905. Bird-lore 7(6):295-350. 
Anonymous. 1917. California condor on exhibition in Golden Gate Park, San Fran- 
cisco, California Fish and Game 3(4): 176. 
Anonymous. 1976. Second stage of condor breeding program nears completion. En- 
dangered Species Tech. Bull. 1(5):2, 4. 
Anthony, A. W. 1893. Birds of San Pedro Martir, Lower California. Zoe 4(3):228-247. 
Ashmole, N. P. 1971. Seabird ecology and the marine environment. Pages 223-286 in 

D. S. Farner and J. R. King, eds. Avian Biology, Vol. I. Academic Press, New York. 
Assenmacher, I. 1973. (Discussion of nutrition in reproduction). Pages 68-73 in D. S. 

Farner, ed. Breeding biology of birds, proceedings of a symposium on breeding 

behavior and reproductive physiology in birds. National Academy of Science, 

Washington, D.C. 
Atkinson, B. 1972. '40 dirty birds' hold their own but are never safe. Smithsonian 

2(12):66-73. 
Austin, O. L. 1949. Site tenacity, a behaviour trait of the common tern (Sterna 

hirundo Linn.). Bird-banding 20(l):l-39. 
Austin, O. L. 1951. Group adherence in the common tern. Bird-banding 22(1):1-15. 
Baird, S. R., T. M. Brewer, and R. Ridgway. 1874. A history of North American birds. 

Volume 3, land birds. Little, Brown and Co., Boston. 560 pp. 
Bancroft, H. H. 1882. The native races. Volume 3, Myths and legends. A. L. Bancroft 

and Co., San Francisco, 796 pp. 
Beebe, C. W. 1909. New World vultures. Part II. N.Y. Zool. Soc. Bull. 32:465-470. 
Belding, L. 1879. A partial list of the birds of central California. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 

1:388-449. 
Bendire, C. 1892. Life histories of North American birds. Smithson. Inst. Spec. 

Bull. 1.446 pp. 
Bidwell, J. 1966. Life in California before the Gold Discovery. Lewis Osborne, Palo 

Alto. 76 pp. 
Bijleveld, M. 1974. Birds of prey in Europe. Macmillan Press Ltd., London. 263 pp. 
Blong, B. 1954. A South Coast deer range. California Department of Fish and Game, 

Los Angeles. 27 pp. 
Borneman, J. C. 1966. Return of a condor. Audubon Mag. 68(3):154-157. 
Borthwick, J. D. 1917. The gold hunters. International Fiction Library, Cleveland. 

361 pp. 
Bouillault, J. 1970. Breeding the griffon vulture (Gyps fuluus) at La Fleche Zoo. Int. 

ZooYearb. 10:21-23. 
Boyd, H. 1972. British studies of goose populations: hindsight as an aid to foresight. 

Pages 251-262 in Population ecology of migratory birds: a symposium. U.S. Bur. 

Sport Fish. Wildl., Wildl. Res. Rep. 2. 
Brodkorb, P. 1964. Catalogue of fossil birds, Part 2 (Anseriformes through Galli- 

formes). Bull. Fla. State Mus., Biol. Sci. 8(3): 195-335. 
Broley, C. L. 1947. Migration and nesting of Florida bald eagles. Wilson Bull. 59(1): 

3-20. 
Brown, L., and D. Amadon. 1968. General life history summary. Pages 185-189 in 

Eagles, hawks and falcons of the world. Volume I. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New 

York. 
Brown, L. H. 1953. On the biology of the large birds of prey of the Embu District, 

Kenya Colony. Ibis 94(4):577-620; 95(1):74-114. 



50 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Brown, L. H. 1972. Natural longevity of wild crowned eagles, Stephanoaetus coro- 

natus. Ibis 114(2):263-265. 
Brown, L. H., and A. Watson. 1964. The golden eagle in relation to its food supply. 

Ibisl06(l):78-100. 
Burcham, L. T. 1957. California range land. Calif. Dep. Nat. Resour. 261 pp. 
Cade, T. J., C. M. White, and J. R. Haugh. 1968. Peregrines and pesticides in Alaska. 

Condor 70(2):170-178. 
California Condor Recovery Team. 1974. California condor recovery plan. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 74 pp. 
California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. 1970. California livestock annual re- 
port summary for 1969. 36 pp. 
Carrick, P. 1972. Population ecology of the Australian black-backed magpie, royal 

penguin, and silver gull. Pages 41-99 in Population ecology of migratory birds: a 

symposium. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Wildl. Res. Rep. 2. 
Carrier, W. D. 1971. Habitat management plan for the California condor. U.S. Forest 

Service. 51 pp. 
Chambers, W. L. 1936. The hunter versus wildlife. Condor 38(5): 199-202. 
Chapman, F. M. 1917. Condor's quill. Bird-lore 19(l):5-8. 
Cleveland, C. 1902. (San Diego Natural History Museum notes). West Am. Sci. 

12(8):130-134. 
Clyman, J. 1926. James Clyman, his diaries and reminiscences. Calif. Hist. Soc. Q. 

6(2):136-137. 
Cody, M. L. 1971. Ecological aspects of reproduction. Pages 461-512 in D. S. Farner 

and J. R. King, eds. Avian biology, Volume 1. Academic Press, New York. 
Cooper, J. G. 1890. A doomed bird. Zoe l(8):248-249. 
Coulson, J. C. 1966. The influence of the pair-bond and age on the breeding biology of 

the kittiwake gull Rissa tridactyla. J. Anim. Ecol. 35(2):269-279. 
Craighead, J. J., and F. C. Craighead, Jr. 1956. Hawks, owls and wildlife. The Stack- 
pole Co., Harrisburg, Pa. 443 pp. 
Critchfield, H. J. 1960. General climatology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 

N.J. 465 pp. 
Cushing, J. E., Jr. 1941. Winter behavior of ravens at Tomales Bay, California. 

Condor 43(2):103-107. 
Darling, F. F. 1938. Bird flocks and the breeding cycle. A contribution to the study of 

avian sociality. Cambridge University Press, London and New York. 124 pp. 
Dasmann, W. P. 1958. Big game of California. California Department of Fish and 

Game. 56 pp. 
Davie, O. 1898. Nests and eggs of North American birds. David McKay, Philadelphia. 

509 pp. 
Davis, D. E. 1952. Social behavior and reproduction. Auk 69(2):171-182. 
Davis, D. E. 1955. Breeding biology of birds. Pages 264-308 in A. Wolfson, ed. Recent 

studies in avian biology. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 
Dawson, W. L. 1923. The birds of California. South Moulton Co., San Diego. 2121 pp. 
Dekker, D. 1967. Hand-rearing the Andean condor at Amsterdam Zoo. Int. Zoo 

Yearb. 7:227-228. 
De la Ascension, A. 1928. Father Antonio de la Ascension's account of the voyage of 

Sebastian Vizcaino. Calif. Hist. Soc. Q. 7(4):295-394. 
De la Fuente, F. R. 1964. Status of predatory birds in Spain. Pages 120-123 in Inter- 
national Council for Bird Preservation, Proceedings of the Working Conference on 

Birds of Prey and Owls. 10-12 April 1964. Caen, France. 
DeSaussure, R. 1956. Remains of the California condor in Arizona caves. Plateau 

29(2):44-45. 
Dixon, J. 1924. California condors breed in captivity. Condor 26(5): 192. 
Dooley, E. J., R. W. Durrenberger, and A. F. Rolle. 1975. California. Pages 32-53 in 

The World Book Encyclopedia, Volume 3. Field Enterprises Educational Corp., 

Chicago. 
Douglas, D. 1829. Observations on Vultur Califurnianus of Shaw. Vigor's Zool. J. 

4(l):328-330. 
Douglas, D. 1914. Journal kept by David Douglas during his travels in North 

America, 1823-1827. William Wesley and Son, London. 364 pp. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 51 



Drury, W. H. 1960. Breeding activities of long-tailed jaeger, herring gull and arctic 

tern on Bylot Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. Bird-banding 21(2):63-79. 
Drury, W. H., and I. C. T. Nisbet. 1972. The importance of movements in the biology 

of herring gulls in New England. Pages 173-213 in Population ecology of migratory 

birds: a symposium. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Wildl. Res. Rep. 2. 
Durrenberger, R. W. 1965. Patterns on the land: geographical, historical and political 

maps of California. National Press Books, Palo Alto. 109 pp. 
Emlen, J. T. 1940. The midwinter distribution of the crow in California. Condor 

42(6):287-294. 
Erickson, R. C. 1974. Andean condor studies at Patuxent and California condor con- 
tingency planning. Paper presented at California Condor Recovery Team meeting, 

1 October 1974, Fresno, Calif. 5 pp. 
Finley, W. L. 1908. Life history of the California condor. Part II. Condor 10(1):5-10. 
Fisher, H. I. 1944. The skulls of the cathartid vultures. Condor 46(6):272-296. 
Fry, W. 1926. The California condor — a modern roc. Gull 8(5):l-3. 
Gambel, W. 1946. Remarks on the birds observed in upper California. Proc. Acad. 

Nat. Sci. Phila. 3:44-48. 
Garber, D. P. 1972. Osprey study, Lassen and Plumas Counties, California, 1970- 

1971. Calif. Dep. Fish Game, Admin. Rep. 72-1. 33 pp. 
Gass, P. 1904. Gass's journal of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Reprint of edition of 

1811. A. C. McClurg and Co., Chicago. 298 pp. 
Grier, J. W. 1969. Bald eagle behavior and productivity responses to climbing to 

nests. J. Wildl. Manage. 33(4):961-966. 
Grinnell, J. 1909. Editorial notes and news. Condor 11(3):104. 
Grinnell, J. 1928. A distributional summation of the ornithology of Lower California. 

Univ. California Publ. Zool. 32(l):l-300. 
Hagar, J. A. 1969. History of the Massachusetts peregrine falcon population, 1935- 

57. Pages 123-131 in J. J. Hickey, ed. Peregrine falcon populations, their biology 

and decline. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 
Harris, H. 1941. The annals of Gymnogyps to 1900. Condor 43(l):3-55. 
Hatch, D. E. 1970. Energy conserving and heat dissipating mechanisms of the turkey 

vulture. Auk 87(1):111-124. 
Herbert, R. A., and K. G. S. Herbert. 1965. Behavior of peregrine falcons in the New 

York City Region. Auk 82(l):62-94. 
Henshaw, H. W. 1876. Report on the ornithology of the portions of California visited 

during the field season of 1875. Pages 224-278 in G. M. Wheeler. Annual report 

upon the geographical survey west of the 100th Meridian in California, Nevada, 

Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona and Montana. U.S. Government 

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
Hickey, J. J. 1942. Eastern population of the duck hawk. Auk 59(21:176-204. 
Hickey, J. J., and D. W. Anderson. 1968. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and eggshell 

changes in raptorial and fish-eating birds. Science 162(38501:271-273. 
Hochbaum, H. A. 1955. Travels and traditions of waterfowl. Charles T. Branford Co., 

Newton, Mass. 301 pp. 
Hoffman, W. H. 1895. Notes on California condors. Avifauna 1(2):17-19. 
Holmes, F. H. 1897. A pet condor. Nidologist 4(6):58-59. 
Houston, D. C. 1971. The ecology of Serengeti vultures. Ph.D. thesis. Trinity College, 

Oxford University, England. 193 pp. 
Howard, H. 1929. The avifauna of Emeryville shellmound. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 

32(2):301-394. 
Howard, H. 1938. (Cooper Ornithological Society meeting notes). Condor 40(3):132. 
Howard, H. 1952. The prehistoric avifauna of Smith Creek Cave, Nevada, with a de- 
scription of a new gigantic raptor. Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 51(2):50-54. 
Howard, H. 1962. Bird remains from a prehistoric cave deposit in Grant County, New 

Mexico. Condor 64(3):241-242. 
Howard, H. 1971. Quaternary avian remains from Dark Canyon Cave, New Mexico. 

Condor 73(2):237-240. 
Howard, H., and A. H. Miller. 1933. Bird remains from cave deposits in New Mexico. 

Condor 35(1):15-18. 



52 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Howard, H., and A. H. Miller. 1939. The avifauna associated with human remains at 
Rancho La Brea, California. Carnegie Inst. Publ. 514:39-48. 

Hunt, E. G. 1969. Pesticide residues in fish and wildlife of California. Pages 455-460 in 
J. J. Hickey, ed. Peregrine falcon populations, their biology and decline. University 
of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 

Immelmann, K. 1971. Ecological aspects of periodic reproduction. Pages 341-389 in 
D. S. Farner and J. R. King, eds. Avian biology, Volume I. Academic Press, New 
York. 

Immelmann, K. 1973. Role of the environment in reproduction as source of "predic- 
tive" information. Pages 121-147 in D. S. Farner, ed. Breeding biology of birds. Na- 
tional Academy of Science, Washington, D.C. 

Janda, J. 1939. Eine gelungene Kondorbrut (A successful breeding of condors). Der 
Zool. Garten N. F., 10:94-96. 

Jarvis, M. J. F., W. R. Siegfried, and M. H. Currie. 1974. Conservation of the Cape 
vulture in the Cape Province. J. S. Afr. Wildl. Manage. Assoc. 4(l):29-34. 

Johnston, W. G. 1948. Overland to California. Biobooks, Oakland, California. 272 pp. 

Jollie, M. 1947. Plumage changes in the golden eagle. Auk 64(4):549-576. 

Jonkel, C. J., and I. McT. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce-fir forest. 
Wildl. Monogr. 27:1-57. 

Kahl, M. P. 1964. Food ecology of the wood stork (Mycteria americana) in Florida. 
Ecol. Monogr. 34:97-117. 

Kahl, M. P. 1966. A contribution to the ecology and reproductive biology of the mara- 
bou stork (Leptotilos cruminiferus) in East Africa. J. Zool. 148(3):289-311. 

Kalela, O. 1949. Changes in geographic ranges in the avifauna of northern and central 
Europe in relation to recent changes in climate. Bird-banding 20(2):77-103. 

Kiff, L. 1977. The elusive condors of Baja California. Audubon Imprint 2(3):l-3, 5. 

King, J. R. 1973. Energetics of reproduction in birds. Pages 78-107 in D. S. Farner, ed. 
Breeding biology of birds. National Academy of Science, Washington, D. C. 

King, J. R., and D. S. Farner. 1961. Energy metabolism, thermoregulation, and body 
temperature. Pages 215-288 in A. J. Marshall, ed. Biology and comparative physi- 
ology of birds. Volume II. Academic Press, New York. 

Klein, D. R. 1970. Food selection by North American deer and their response to over- 
utilization of preferred plant species. Pages 25-46 in A. Watson, ed. Animal popula- 
tions in relation to their food resources. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford 
and Edinburgh. 

Kleinstauber, K. 1969. The status of cliff-nesting peregrines in the German Demo- 
cratic Republic. Pages 209-216 in J. J. Hickey, ed. Peregrine falcon populations, 
their biology and decline. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 

Koford, C. B. 1953. The California condor. Natl. Audubon Soc, Res. Rep. 4. 154 pp. 

Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithson. Inst., Bur. Am. 
Ethnol. Bull. 78. 995 pp. 

Lack, D. 1937. A review of bird census work and bird population problems. Ibis, Ser. 
14, l(2):369-395. 

Lawrence, R. E. 1893. Pseudogryphus californianus. Auk 10(3):300-301. 

Leeper, D. R. 1894. The argonauts of 'Forty-nine. J. B. Stoll and Co., South Bend, In- 
diana. 146 pp. 

Lehrman, D. S. 1959. Hormonal response to external stimuli in birds. Ibis 101(4):478- 
496. 

Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. Charles Scribners, New York. 481 pp. 

Ligon, J. D. 1967. Relationships of the cathartid vultures. Occas. Pap., Mus. Zool. 
Univ. Mich. No. 651. 26 pp. 

Lint, K. C. 1959. San Diego's Andean condors, a closeup of one of the world's most in- 
accessible birds. Zoonooz 32(3):3-7. 

Lint, K. C. 1960. Notes on breeding Andean condors at San Diego Zoo. Int. Zoo Yearb. 
2:82. 

Macoun, J., and J. M. Macoun. 1909. Catalogue of Canadian birds. Government Print- 
ing Bureau, Ottawa. 761 pp. 

MacRoberts, B. R., and M. H. MacRoberts. 1972. Social stimulation of reproduction 
in herring and lesser black-backed gulls. Ibis 1 14(4):495-506. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 53 



Mallette, R. D. 1970. Operational management plan for the California condor. Cali- 
fornia Department of Fish and Game. 58 pp. 

Marshall, A. J. 1951. Food availability as a timing factor in the sexual cycle of birds. 
Emu 50(2):267-282. 

Marshall, A. J. 1952. Non-breeding among Arctic birds. Ibis 94(2):310-333. 

Marshall, A. J. 1961. Breeding seasons and migration. Pages 307-339 in A. J. Mar- 
shall, ed. Biology and comparative physiology of birds, Volume II. Academic Press, 
New York and London. 

Martin, P. S. 1967. Prehistoric overkill. Pages 75-120 in P. S. Martin and H. E. 
Wright, Jr., eds. Pleistocene extinction, the search for a cause. Yale University 
Press, New Haven and London. 

McCoy, J. J. 1963. The fossil avifauna of Itchtucknee River, Florida. Auk 80(3):335- 
351. 

McFarland, L. Z., R. L. Garrett, and J. A. Newell. 1971. Normal eggshells and thin 
eggshells caused by organochlorine insecticides viewed by a scanning electron 
microscope. Proceedings of the Scanning Electron Microscope Symposium 4:377- 
384. 

McMillan, I. 1968. Man and the California condor. E. P. Dutton and Co., New York. 
191 pp. 

McNulty, F. 1966. The whooping crane. E. P. Dutton and Co., New York. 190 pp. 

Mehringer, P. J., Jr. 1967. The environment of extinction of the late-Pleistocene mega- 
fauna in the arid southwestern United States. Pages 247-266 in P. S. Martin and 
H. E. Wright Jr., eds. Pleistocene extinction. Yale University Press, New Haven 
and London. 

Memphis State University. 1971. Effects of noise on wildlife and other animals. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 74 pp. 
Miller, A. H. 1942. A California condor bone from the coast of southern Oregon. 

Murrelet 23(31:77. 
Miller, A. H., and H. I. Fisher. 1938. The pterylosis of the California condor. Condor 

40(61:248-256. 
Miller, A. H., I. McMillan, and E. McMillan. 1965. The current status and welfare of 

the California condor. Natl. Audubon Soc, Res. Rep. 6. 61 pp. 
Miller, L. H. 1910. The condor-like vultures of Rancho La Brea. Univ. Calif. Publ., 

Bull. Dep.Geol. 6(11:1-19. 
Miller, L. H. 1911. Avifauna of the Pleistocene cave deposits of California. Univ. 

Calif., Bull. Dep. Geol. 6(161:365-400. 
Miller, L. H. 1927. Pleistocene fauna and flora. Bird remains. Science 66(17021:155- 

156. 
Miller, L. H. 1931. The California condor in Nevada. Condor 33(1 ):32. 
Miller, L. H. 1943. The Pleistocene birds of San Josecito Cavern, Mexico. Univ. Calif. 

Publ. Zool. 47(51:143-168. 
Miller, L. H. 1957. Bird remains from an Oregon Indian midden. Condor 59(11:59-63. 
Miller, L. H. 1960. Bird remains from Rampart Cave, Arizona. Condor 62(11:70: 

62(41:298. 
Miller, L. 1L, and I. DeMay. 1942. The fossil birds of California. Univ. Calif. Publ. 

Zool. 47(41:47-142. 
Moll, K. H. 1969. On the osprey situation in the German Democratic Republic. Pages 

341-343 in J. J. Hickey, ed. Peregrine falcon populations, their biology and decline. 

University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 
Nelson. M. W. 1969. The status of the peregrine falcon in the Northwest. Pages 61-72 

in J. J. Hickey. ed. Peregrine falcon populations, their biology and decline. Univer- 
sity of Wisconsin press, Madison. 
Newberry, J. S. 1857. Report upon the zoology of the route. Vol. 6, Part IV, No. 2. in 

.]. S. Newberry, Report on explorations and surveys to ascertain the most practic- 
able and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific 

Ocean. Beverly Tucker, Washington, D.C. 
Norris, J. P., Jr. 1926. A catalogue of sets of Accipitres' eggs in the collection of 

Joseph Parker Norris, Jr. Oologist's Record 6(21:25-41. 



54 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Oehme, G. 1969. Population trends of the white-tailed sea eagle in North Germany. 

Pages 351-352 in J. J. Hickey, ed. Peregrine falcon populations, their biology and 

decline. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 
Olivares, A. 1963. Se esta extinguiendo el condor en Colombia? Revista de la Acad. 

Columbiana de Ciencias 12(45):21-28. 
Parker, H. 1965. The early Indians of Temecula. Paisano Press Inc., Balboa Island, 

California. 34 pp. 
Palmer, R. S. 1972. Patterns of molting. Pages 65-102 in D. S. Farner and J. R. King, 

eds. Avian biology, Volume II. Academic Press, New York and London. 
Parmalee, P. W. 1969. California condor and other birds from Stanton Cave, Arizona. 

J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 5(4):204-206. 
Peale, T. R. 1957. Diary of Titian Ramsay Peale. Dawson's Book Store, Los Angeles. 

85 pp. 
Phillips, J. C. 1926. An attempt to list the extinct and vanishing birds of the Western 

Hemisphere, with some notes on recent status, location of specimens, etc. Int. Orni- 

thol. Congr. 6:503-534. 
Portielje, A. F. J. 1949. Premarital behavior in the condor (Sarcoramphus grypus L.). 

Z. Tierpsychol. 20(4):468-473. 
Poulsen, H. 1963. On the behavior of the South American condor (Vultur gryphus L.). 

Z. Tierpsychol. 20(4):468-473. 
Putnam, R. 1928. The letters of Roselle Putnam. Oreg. Hist. Q. 29(3):242-264. 
Reed, G. W., and R. Gaines, eds. 1949. The journals, drawings and other papers of J. 

Goldsborough Bruff, April 2, 1849-July 20, 1851. Columbia University Press, New 

York. 794 pp. 
Reichel, W. L., E. Cromartie, T. G. Lamont, B. M. Mulhern, and R. M. Prouty. 1969. 

Pesticide residues in eagles. Pestic. Monit. J. 3(3):142-144. 
Reid, H. A. 1895. History of Pasadena. Pasadena History Co., Pasadena. 675 pp. 
Ricklefs, R. E. 1973. Patterns of growth in birds. II. Growth rate and mode of devel- 
opment. Ibis 115(2):177-201. 
Rieger, S. F. 1973. California condor range land use study. California Department of 

Fish and Game, Sacramento. 13 pp. 
Ridgway, R. 1880. Notes on the American vultures (Sarcorhamphidae), with special 

reference to their generic nomenclature. Bull. Nuttall Ornithol. Club 5(2):77-84. 
Rising, H. 1899. Capture of a California condor. Condor l(2):25-26. 
Robinette, W. L., C. R. Baer, R. E. Pillmore, and C. E. Knittle. 1973. Effects of nutri- 
tional change on captive mule deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 37(3):312-326. 
Robinson, C. S. 1940. Notes on the California condor, collected on Los Padres Na- 
tional Forest, California. U.S. Forest Service, Santa Barbara. 21 pp. 
Scott, C. D. 1936a. Are condors extinct in Lower California? Condor 38(l):41-42. 
Scott, C. D. 1936b. Who killed the condor? Nat. Mag. 28(6):368-370. 
Scouler, J. 1905. Dr. John Scouler's journal of a voyage to northwest America. Q. 

Oreg. Hist. Soc. 6(2):276-287. 
Security Pacific National Bank. 1970. The Southern California report, a study of 

growth and economic stature. Economic Research Department, Los Angeles. 

160 pp. 
Sharma, I. K. 1970. Breeding of the Indian white-backed vulture at Jodhpur. Ostrich 

41(3):205-207. 
Sharp, C. S. 1918. Concerning a condor. Oologist 35(1):8-11. 
Shields, A.M. 1895. Nesting of the California vulture. Nidiologist 2(11): 148- 150. 
Sibley, F. C. 1969. Effects of the Sespe Creek Project on the California condor. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. 19 pp. 
Siddon, D. 1967. Perched on the brink of oblivion. Los Angeles Times, West Maga- 
zine, 5 March: 27-29. 
Slobodkin, L. B. 1961. Growth and regulation of animal populations. Holt, Rinehart 

and Winston, New York. 184 pp. 
Sowls, L. K. 1955. Prairie ducks: a study of their behavior, ecology and management. 

Stackpole Co., Harrisburg. 193 pp. 
Spofford, W. R. 1964. The golden eagle in the Trans-Pecos and Edwards Plateau of 

Texas. Natl. Audubon Soc, Conserv. Rep. 1. 47 pp. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 55 



Stager, K. 1964. The role of olfaction in food location by the turkey vulture (Cathartes 
aura). Los Angeles Cty. Mus. Contrib. Sci. 81:1-63. 

Statewide Air Pollution Research Center. 1973. Oxidant air pollution effects on a 
western coniferous forest ecosystem. Task B report: Historical background and 
proposed systems study of the San Bernardino Mountain area. University of Cali- 
fornia, Riverside. 153 pp. 

Stephens, F. 1899. Lassoing a California condor. Bull. Cooper Ornithol. Club 1(5):88. 

Stewart, G. W. 1908. The condor in the San Joaquin Valley. Condor 10(3):130. 

Stickel, L. F. 1969. (Comments in roundtable discussion of pesticide effects on raptor 
populations.) Page 473 in- J. J. Hickey, ed. Peregrine falcon populations, their 
biology and decline. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 

Stickel, W. H. 1975. Some effects of pollutants in terrestrial ecosystems. Pages 25-69 
in A. D. Mclntyre and C. F. Mills, eds. Ecological toxicology research. Plenum Pub- 
lications Corp., New York. 

Stillman, J. D. B. 1967. The gold rush letters. Lewis Osborne, Palo Alto. 75 pp. 

Swann, H. K. 1924. Monograph of the birds of prey. Vol. 1, Part 1. Weldon and 
Wesley, London. 51 pp. 

Taber, R. D., and R. F. Dasmann. 1958. The black-tailed deer in the chaparral. Calif. 
Dep. Fish Game, Game Bull. 8. 163 pp. 

Taylor, A. S. 1859. The great vulture of California. Hutching's Calif. Mag. 3(12):540- 
543;4(l):17-22;4(2):61-64. 

Taylor, H. R. 1895. Habits of the California condor. Nidiologist 2(6):73-79. 

Todd, F. S. 1974. Maturation and behavior of the California condor at the Los Angeles 
Zoo. Int. Zoo Yearb. 14:145-147. 

Todd, F. S., and N. B. Gale. 1970. Further notes on the California condor at Los An- 
geles Zoo. Int. Zoo Yearb. 10:15-17. 

Tolmie, W. F. 1963. William Fraser Tolmie, physician and fur trader. Mitchell Press 
Ltd., British Columbia. 413 pp. 

Townsend, C. H. 1887. Field-notes on the mammals, birds and reptiles of northern 
California. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 10:159-241. 

Townsend, J. K. 1848. Popular monograph on the accipitrine birds of N.A. — No. II, 

Californian vulture. Literary Record and J. Linnaean Assoc, Pennsylvania College 

4(12):265-272. 
Van Velzen, A. C, W. R. Stiles, and L. F. Stickel. 1972. Lethal mobilization of DDT by 

cowbirds. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(3):733-739. 
Vaughan, T. 1 97 1 . Russian museums: a unique trip by rail. West. Mus. Q. 7(3): 1 -7. 
Ventura County Planning Department. 1970. Report on grazing land relative to the 

Land Conservation Act. Ventura, California. 5 pp. 

Vernon, C. -I. 1965. The 1964 black eagle survey in the Matopos, Rhodesia. Arnoldia 

2(6):l-9. 
Von Haartman, L. 1972. Influence of territory upon structure and dynamics of bird 

populations. Pages 101-111 in Population ecology of migratory birds: a svmposium. 

U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl.. Wildl. Res. Rep. 2. 
Wetmore, A. 1931a. The California condor in New Mexico. Condor 33(2):76-77. 

Wetmore, A. 1931b. The avifauna of the Pleistocene in Florida. Smithson. Misc. 
Collect. 85(2): 1-41. 

Wetmore, A. 1932. Additional records of birds from cavern deposits in New Mexico. 
Condor 34(3): 14 1-1 42. 

Wetmore, A., and H. Friedmann. 1933. The California condor in Texas. Condor 
35(l):37-38. 

White, C. M. 1969. Breeding Alaskan and Arctic migrant populations of the pere- 
grine. Pages 45-51 in J. J. Hickey, ed. Peregrine falcon populations, their biology 
and decline. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 

Wilbur. S. R. 1973. The California condor in the Pacific Northwest. Auk 90(1):196-198. 

Wilbur, S. R 1975. California condor plumage and molt as field study aids. California 
Fish and (lame 61(3):144-148. 

Wilbur, S. R., W. D. Carrier, and J. C. Borneman. 1974. Supplemental feeding pro- 
gram for California condors. J. Wildl. Manage. 38(21:343-346. 



56 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Wilcox, A. 1901. California vulture. Am. Ornithology 1(9):164-168. 
Willett, G. 1931. The condor in San Benito County, California. Condor 33(1):31. 
Wynne-Edwards, V. C. 1962. Animal dispersion in relation to social behavior. Hafner 
Publishing Co., New York. 653 pp. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 57 



APPENDIX I 



Record of Condor Occurrence, 1966-1976 

The following list includes representative records of California condor dis- 
tribution and numbers during 1966-76. These sightings, plus additional simi- 
lar records totaling 3,045 observations, are the basis for the range delinea- 
tions and population estimates in the present report. All these records are 
regarded as "positive" (i.e., there is little or no chance that they do not repre- 
sent condors in the numbers and ages listed). An additional 520 sightings, 
many of which undoubtedly were valid reports, were excluded from the 
analysis because not enough information was provided, the ability of the ob- 
servers was unknown to me, or for other reasons. All 3,565 records are on file 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 
Laurel, Maryland. 

Abbreviations used in the list are: A, adult birds; I, immature plumaged 
birds (under about 5 years old); U, birds unclassified to age. Initials of regu- 
larly cited observers are: KA (Keith Axelson), JB (John Borneman), DC 
(Dean Carrier), DCo (David Connell), GS (Grace Corlis), HC (Harold Cribbs), 
EF (Evalyn Farnsworth), RF (Reno Ferrari), WF (Walter Fieguth), HH 
(Harry Hayden), DM (Don McLean), MM (Monty Montagne), RM (Robert 
Mallette), DO (Dan O'Connor), CO (Clyde Osborn), RP (Riley Patterson), PR 
(Pauline Roulier), DS (Dick Smith), FS (Fred Sibley), IS (Ina Singer), MS 
(Martin Steiginga), MSI (Mike Silbernagle), SS (Sandra Southard), HU 
(Hazel Upham), NW (Mrs. J. B. Williams), RMW (Russell and Marion 
Wilson), SW (Sanford Wilbur), and TZ (Tony Zufich). 

Santa Clara County 

1966, San Jose: 26 Oct., 2 A II (DM). 

1967, San Jose: 10 Nov., II (DM). 

1968, San Jose: 23 May, 1 A (DM); 26 Oct., 2A (DM). 

1970, San Jose: 3 Sept., 1A II (DM). 

1971, Palo Alto: 10-12 Jan., II (H. Mundy, W. Anderson). 

1971, San Jose: 28 Sept., 1 A 21 (DM). 

1972, Palo Alto: 4 March, 1 A (G. Meyers). 
1972, Pacheco Pass: 1 June, 2A II (W. Goodloe). 

San Benito County 

1967, Quien Sabe Ranch: Feb., 1U (G. Haganen). 

1968, Call Mountain: 8 Sept., 2A (F. Williamson). 

Monterey County 

1970, Cone Peak: 25 Oct., 1U (P. Kinder). 

1971, Pacific Grove: 28 Jan., 1 A (T. Robinson). 



58 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

1971, Cone Peak: 22 May, 1A (P. Kinder). 

1971, Parkfield: 28 Sept., 2A (J. Edwards). 

1973, Parkfield: June, 1A (B. Walton). 

1975, Hunter-Liggett Military Reservation: 31 March, 1U (L. Sitton) 

Kings County 
1970, near Avenal: 3 Sept., 2U (J. Traub). 

San Luis Obispo County 

1966, Lopez Canyon: 7 Feb., 3A (E. Barbere, D. Peton); 21 April, 1A (E. 

Barbere). 
1966, Hi Mountain: 1 March, 1U (R. Stone); 30 Nov., 2A II (FS, JB). 
1966, Pozo: 15 March, 1A (R. Stone, J. Blake). 
1966, Cholame: 9 Sept., 1A (E. McMillan). 

1966, Black Mountain: 22 Sept., 1A (V. Livingston). 

1967, Garcia Mountain: 10 Jan., 1A II (J. Blake); 14 Feb., II (J. Blake). 
1967, Hi Mountain: 24 May, 1A II (FS); 14 Sept., II (FS); 11 Oct., 1A (RF). 

1967, Lopez Lake: 26 July, 1U (C. Edon). 

1968, Beartrap Canyon: 6 March, 2A (FS, E. McMillan). 

1968, Pozo: 13 April, 1A (J. Blake); 31 Aug., 1A (H. Martin); 12 Sept., 2A (J. 

Blake). 
1968, La Panza: 3 May, 1A (L. Todd). 

1968, Hi Mountain: 31 May, 1A (RF); 16 June, II (RF); 30 July, 1A II (FS, 
DC); 17 Oct., 3A 1U (RF, J. Edwards); 20 Oct. 2A II (RF); 4 Nov., 2A (RF); 
20 Nov., 2A II (FS, DC); 10 Dec. 2A II (RF). 

1969, Lopez Canyon: 29 Jan., 1 A (V. Price, B. Doan). 

1969, Fitzhugh Ranch, Villa Creek: 1 April, II (A. Fitzhugh); 16 April, 1A II 

(L. Fitzhugh). 
1969, Cholame: 27 April, 1U (R. Garrett); 22 June, 2U (R. Gilman). 
1969, Simmler: 8 May, 1 A (RP). 
1969, Beartrap Canyon: 18 June, 1 A (FS). 
1969, Hi Mountain: 12 July, 2A (RF); 1 Aug., II (RF); 26 Nov., 2A II (RF); 

12 Dec, 2A1I2U(RF). 
1969, Carrizo Plains: 18 Aug., 2A 21 (E. McMillan). 
1969, Rocky Butte: 22 Aug., 1A (B. and H. Robe); 22 Sept., 2A (B. and H. 

Robe). 

1969, Black Mountain: 25 Aug., 1A (J. Gregory). 

1970, Pozo: 27 Feb., 1A (J. Blake). 

1970, Hi Mountain: 13 March, 1A II (DC, SW). 

1970, Beartrap Canyon: 27 March, 1A II (S. and S. Wilbur). 

1970, Palo Prieto Canyon: 29 May, 2U (R. Gilman). 

1970, Rocky Butte: 10 Aug., 21 (B. and H. Robe). 

1970, Cholame: 19 Oct., 1 A (G. Tidwell). 

1970, Morro Bay: 27 Dec, II (J. Edmisten). 

1971, Simmler: 3 Jan., 1A (T. Huff); 5 May, 1 A (C. Edon). 
1971, Garcia Mountain: 7 Jan., 1A (R. Rominger). 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 59 

1971, Los Machos Hills: 1 March, 2A II (W. Baden). 

1971, Hi Mountain: 4 Aug., 2A II (V. Price); 15 Dec, II (J. Sutter). 

1971, Rocky Butte: 15 Aug., 1 A 21 (H. Robe). 

1972, Shandon: 20 March, 2A (E. McMillan). 
1972, Elkhorn Valley: 27 April, 1 A (R. Thomas). 

1972, Branch Mountain: 15-16 Oct., 1A (R. Reghetti, S. Rollins); 28 Oct., II 
(S. and W. RoUins). 

1973, Pozo: 2 Feb., 2A (D. Cooper). 

1973, Hi Mountain: 28 May, 2A (J. Conway). 
1973, Wilcox Canyon: 6 June, 1 A (G. Rhoden). 
1973, Beartrap Canyon: 23 July, 2A II (B. Walton). 

1973, Lopez Canyon: 17 Nov., 1A 2U (J. Conway). 

1974, Pilitas Mountain: 14 Feb., 4 A (C. Koford). 

1974, Hi Mountain: 22 Dec, II (J. Gabel). 

1975, Pozo Station: 8 March, 1U (J. Arnold). 
1975, Hi Mountain: 11 July, 2U (A. Sims). 

1975, Los Machos Hills: 12 Nov., 1A (J. Arnold). 

1976, Carrizo Plains: 10 Jan., 2A II (R. Palm). 

1976, Temblor Mountains: 8 June, 1 A 3U (D. Bowman). 

Santa Barbara County 

1966, Los Alamos: 12 Jan., 2A (JB). 

1966, San Marcos Pass: 6 April, 2 A II (J. Mills). 

1966, Bluff Camp, Buckhorn Road: 21 May, 2A (W. Hansen); 21 Sept., 2A 

(JB). 
1966, Buellton: 31 May, 2A (RP). 
1966, Cuyama Peak: 3 June, II (B. Hudson); 23 June, 1A (B. Hudson); 13 

July, II (B. Hudson); 18 Oct., 1A (B. Hudson). 
1966, Pendola: 9 June, 1A (B. Harvey). 

1966, Manzana Creek: 12-15 June, 1U 4U (F. Winter, J. Lorenzana). 
1966, Figueroa Mountain: 3 July, 2 A (HH); 30 July, II (HH). 
1966, Sierra Madre Ridge: 18 Oct., 2A (F. Thayer, DS). 

1966, La Carpa Potreros: 15 Dec, 1 A 3U (D. Calkins). 

1967, Cuyama: 15 Jan., 2A (E. Morris). 
1967, Pendola: 18 Feb., 1U (DS). 

1967, Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary area: 27 Feb., 2A (DS); 1 March, 2U (DS): 

18 0ct.,2A(DS, W. Griffin). 
1967, Figueroa Mountain: 24 March, 2A 1U (C. Smith); 9 Oct., 1A (HH); 4 

Nov., 2A (B. Schram). 
1967, McPherson Peak: 23 July, 1U (L. Jordan). 
1967, Monte Arido: 25 Aug., 1 A (FS, JB). 
1967, Cuyama Peak: 18 Oct., 1A II (D. Jorgensen). 
1967, Los Olivos: 29 Nov., 2A (DS). 

1967, Sierra Madre Ridge: 12 Nov., 2A (R. Dias); 16-17 Nov., 1A (FS); 4 Dec, 
2A(R. Dalen). 

1968, Montecito Peak: 8 Jan., II (M. Sanchez, G. Davidson). 

1968, Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary: 7 Feb., 1A (DS); 12 Aug., 2A (R. Dias, A. 
Simas); 21 Oct., II (A. Simas). 



60 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

1968, Madulce Peak: 23 March, II (H. Buck). 

1968, Sierra Madre Ridge: 8 May, 2A (DCo, E. Morris); 23 Oct., 2A (DC, 

DCo). 
1968, McPherson Peak: 3 July, II (W. Conrad); 24 Oct., 2A (A. Conrad). 
1968, Santa Ynez: 30 July, 1A (G. Adams). 
1968, Cuyama Peak: 2 Oct., 1A II (V. Lacy); 3 Oct., 3A (V. Lacy); 24 Oct., 21 

(V. Lacy). 

1968, Figueroa Mountain: 29 Oct., 1U (HH); 5 Dec, 2A (HH). 

1969, Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary: 10 Jan., II (D. Moody, R. Dias); 1 April, 
2A (J. Easton); 15 Oct., 2A (DS, R. Dalen). 

1969, Madulce Peak: 30 Jan., 1A (D. Enger, J. Oman); 1 June, 1A (W. 
Hansen). 

1969, Figueroa Mountain; 2 Feb., 1A (J. Baker); 21 May, II (HH); 12 Aug., 
lA(HH);9 0ct., 1A(HH). 

1969, Bluff Camp - Buckhorn Road: 14 May, 2A 21 (B. Doan, T. Thomp- 
son); 31 Dec, 3U (R. Talbot, D. Shields). 

1969, McPherson Peak: 19 May, 2U (D. Moody). 

1969, Santa Barbara Potrero: 7 July, 2A (DCo). 

1970, Sierra Madre Ridge: 8 Jan., 2U, (M. Sims); 3 June, 1U (M. Sims); 9 
Aug., 1A (M. Sims); 12 Sept., 1A (M. Sims). 

1970, Manzana Narrows: 30 Jan., 2A (E. Kynoch). 

1970, Los Prietos: 16 March, 2A (R. Calkins). 

1970, Sisquoc Sanctuary: 22 March, 1A (D. Thompson); 27 March, 2U (J. 

Miller). 
1970, Figueroa Mountain: 13 Aug., 1U (HH); 10 Nov., 1U (HH); 3 Dec, 1A 

(W. Stevens). 

1970, Buellton: 5 Sept., 1A (J. Sinton). 

1971, Los Alamos: 22 Feb., 2U (T. Monighetti). 

1971, Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary: 27 April, 3A (M. Sims); 10 May, 2A (W. 

Alexander); 9 June, 2A (M. Sims). 
1971, McPherson Peak: 23 May, 2A (W. Conrad); 14 Aug., 1A (W. Conrad). 
1971, Lake Cachuma: 26 Feb., 1A (I. McMillan). 
1971, Cuyama Peak: 19 June, 1A (A. Sims); 3 July, II (A. Sims); 8 Nov., 2A 

(A. Sims). 

1971, Figueroa Mountain: 23 Oct., 1A (HH). 

1972, Madulce Peak: 4 March, 2 A (DS, J. Berry). 
1972, Sisquoc Sanctuary: 30 March, II (A. Sims). 

1972, Sierra Madre Ridge: 3 June, 1A II (B. Holdridge); 20 Aug., 1A (DS). 
1972, Cuyama Peak: 13 Aug., 2A (G. Carpenter); 1 Sept., 1U (G. Carpenter). 
1972, Cachuma Mountain: 27 Aug., 2A (P. Flores). 

1972, Figueroa Mountain: 27 Dec, 1A (J. Sutter). 

1973, Cuyama Peak: 24 June, 1U (D. O'Connor); 19 July, II (D. O'Connor); 7 
Oct., 1 A (D. O'Connor). 

1973, Sisquoc Sanctuary: 23 Feb., 1U (DS). 
1973, Sierra Madre Ridge: 6 July, 1 A (DS). 

1973, Figueroa Mountain: 31 Aug., 1A (H. Greiman). 

1974, Sisquoc Sanctuary: 12 April, 1A (L. Mansfield). 

1974, Cuyama Peak: 30 May, II (K. Allen); 12 July, 1A (K. Allen); 7 Oct., 1A 
(K. Allen). 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR. 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 61 

1974, Bluff Camp — Buckhorn Road: 10 Oct., 1 A (DS, L. Kinnear). 

1974, Zaca Mountain: 29 Nov., 1A (R. Easton). 

1975, Sisquoc Canyon: 16 Feb., 3A (W. Hansen). 

1975, West Big Pine: 27 Feb., 2A (MM, DS); 2 April, 3A (MM, DS); 13 May, 
3A II (MM, DS); 5 June, 3A (DS, SW); 22 July, 2A (MM); 21 Oct., 1A 
(MM, DS). 

1975, Hurricane Deck area: 8 April, 1 A (J. Cody). 

1975, Cuyama Peak: 27 May, 1U (J. Black); 15 July, 1A (J. Black). 

1976, West Big Pine: 9 Jan., 2A (MM, DS); 22 April, 1A (J. Hamber, DS); 15 
June, 2A (MM, DS); 13 July, 2A II (MM, DS); 18 Nov., 2A II (MM, DS). 

Ventura County 

1966, Topatopa Bluffs: 5 Jan., 2A (JB). 

1966, Hopper Canyon area, Sespe Condor Sanctuary: 25 Jan., 9A II (JB); 2 

Feb., 13A (FS, JB); 10 Feb., 2A 6U (JB, Y. Miller); 12 April, 2A II (JB); 17 

May, 3A 21 (JB); 19 July, 3A (JB); 19 Oct., II (DCo); 24 Dec, 2A 21 (DCo). 
1966, Bucksnort area, Sespe Condor Sanctuary: 5 March, 5 A II (JB, Y. 

Miller); 17 March, 6A (G. Morgan); 20 April, 6A II (Y. Miller); 4 July, 4A 

(JB);7 0ct.,2A(JB). 
1966, Ozena: 8 Feb., 21 (HU). 
1966, Gold Hill: 9 Feb., 2A (JB). 
1966, Santa Paula Canyon: 16 Feb., 1A (JB). 
1966, Sespe Hot Springs: 22 March, 6A (JB, FS); 4 Oct., 1 A (FS). 
1966, Mutau Flat: 23 March, 1A (A. West). 
1966, Frazier Mountain: 1 April, 1A II (V. Osborn); 29 June, 1A II (HU); 2 

July, 3A II (HU); 9 Sept., 5A (HU). 
1966, Matilija Creek: 13 May, 1A (S. Flores); 25 Nov., 1A (JB). 
1966, Mt. Pinos: 22 July, 8A (RMW); 8 Aug., 16A (RMW); 12 Aug., 21A 

(JB); 25 Aug., 18A 21 1U (FS); 3 Sept., 5A 31 (DS). 
1966, Thorn Point: 14 Aug., 2A (TZ); 10 Sept., 1A (JB, FS). 

1966, Reyes Peak: 18 Nov., 3U (J. Hunter). 

1967, Hopper Canyon: 10 Jan., 7 A II (FS); 23 Jan., 6 A 41 (FS); 7 Feb., 6 A 21 
(JB, FS); 8 March, 9A II (DCo); 28 April, 4A II (FS, JB); 4 May, 6A II 
(FS); 19 June, 2A II (JB); 21 June, 6A (FS); 12 July, 1A (JB, FS); 28 Nov., 
5A(FS). 

1967, Potrero Seco: 5 Feb., 1A (B. Stone). 

1967, Matilija Creek: 8 Feb., 1A II (JB, FS); 26 Feb., 3A (J. Lorenzana); 2 

March, 2A (FS). 
1967, Agua Blanca: 2 March, 8A (JB); 11 May, 2 A (FS); 27 Dec., 2 A (JB). 
1967, Coldwater Canyon — Sespe Creek: 27 March, 2A (FS); 11 May, 1A 

(FS); 7 Sept., 2A (JB). 
1967, Chismahoo area: 18 May, 6A (D. Adams, C. Hall). 
1967, Thorn Point: 23 May, 1A (JB); 25 July, 2A II (TZ); 16 Aug., 1 A (TZ). 
1967, Nordhoff Peak: 19 June, 2 A (M. Woodmansee). 
1967, Reyes Peak: 22 June, 1 A (JB); 18 Oct., 2A (J. Doman, G. Durney). 
1967, Frazier Mountain: 23 June, 2A (HU); 9 Aug., 3A 21 (HU); 18 Aug., 8A 

(HU);llOct., 3A(HU). 



62 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

1967, Mt. Pinos: 8 June, 1A (O. Widmann); 23 July, 7 A 21 (B. Watson); 17 

Aug., 23A (JB); 19 Aug., 16A 31 (FS, JB); 2 Sept., 3A (B. Watson). 
1967, Topatopa Bluffs: 15 Nov., 1A (JB). 

1967, Santa Paula Canyon: 5 Dec, 1 A (JB). 

1968, Lake Piru: 6 Jan., 2A (T. Turner, A. Moreno); 8 April, 4A (A. Moreno). 
1968, Matilija Creek: 18 Jan., 1 A (JB). 

1968, Hopper Canyon: 30 Jan., 3A (FS); 27 March, 6A (JB); 19 April, 3A II 

(G. Roby); 10 May, 3A II (FS, JB); 1 July, 1A (FS, DC); 6 Sept., 4A (FS, 

DC); 15 Oct., 1 A 21 (G. Roby). 
1968, Bucksnort area: 20 Jan., 4A (Y. Miller); 16 Oct., 4A (O. Widmann, C. 

Rust); 16 Dec, 6A II (JB); 17 Dec, 8A (FS, RM); 20 Dec, 13A (DC). 
1968, Reyes Peak: 5 Feb., 1A 1U (M. Faaborg). 
1968, South Mountain: 19 Feb., 1 A (RP). 
1968, Agua Blanca: 23 April, 2A (JB); 17 May, 2A (FS); 20 June, 2A (DC); 25 

Nov.,2A(JB). 
1968, Big Mountain — Torrey Canyon: May, 1 A (D. Partridge). 
1968, Mt. Pinos: 14 May, 1A (B. Glading); 6 July, 2A (B. Watson); 13 July, 

6A (B. Watson); 10 Aug., 7A II (JB); 29 Aug., 10A 21 (FS); 16 Oct., 1A (G. 

Nixon, A. Fries). 
1968, Thorn Point: 21 May, 1A (TZ); 28 May, 2 A II (FS); 4 July, 2A (TZ); 11 

Oct., 1A(TZ). 
1968, Frazier Mountain: 5 June, 2A (HU); 17 June, II (HU); 1 Sept., II (HU); 

17 Oct., 3A(HU). 
1968, Nordhoff Peak: 7 June, II (M. Woodmansee); 9 Sept., II (M. Wood- 

mansee). 
1968, Santa Paula Canyon: 16 Oct., 1A II (L. Fischer). 

1968, Hungry Valley: 17 Oct., 4A (D. Beauchamp). 

1969, Hopper Canyon: 3 Jan., 4A II (JB); 17 Jan., 5A II (FS); 23 July, 1A 
(DC, FS); 22 Oct., 2A (R. Peery, F. Todd). 

1969, Bucksnort area: 27 March, 15A II (DC); 2 May, 8A (FS); 15 July, 2A 

(DC, FS). 
1969, Agua Blanca: 9 Jan., 6A (JB); 25 March, 3A (DC, JB); 15 Oct., 3A (J. 

Spruill, C. Rust); 18 Dec, 8A (SW, JB). 
1969, Green Cabins, Sespe Creek: 15 Oct., 3A II (KA, F. Simas). 
1969, Sulfur Mountain (Upper Ojai): 15 Jan., 1A II (M. Anderson); 21 Jan., 

2A (J. Taft); 4 April, 2A (JB); 16 Aug., 1U (J. Taft). 
1969, Simi Valley: 27 Feb., 1 A (N. Bean). 
1969, Santa Paula Canyon: 14 April, 2A (JB); 20 Nov., 2A (JB); 12 Dec, 2A 

1U(JB,SW). 
1969, Matilija Creek: 16 April, 1A (DC, FS); 15 Oct., 2U (S. Vehrs). 
1969, Reyes Peak: 15 May, 1U (JB); 15 Oct., II (W. McGuire, R. Lavender). 
1969, Thorn Point: 25 May, II (S. Molnar); 29 May, 1A (JB, FS); 11 July, 1A 

(TZ). 
1969, Mt. Pinos: 28 May, 1A (D. Hayden); 13 July, 5U (KA); 24 July, 5A 21 

(RMW); 8 Aug., 22A 31 (JB, E. McMillan); 23 Sept., 2A (DC); 15 Oct., 1A 

1U (V. and S. Mangold). 
1969, Chismahoo — Laguna Ridge: August, 2A (L. Thomas). 
1969, Frazier Mountain: 15 Oct., 2A II 1U (HU). 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 63 



1970, Hopper Canyon: 2 Jan., 2A 1U (JB, SW); 30 Jan., 6A (G. Roby); 20 

Feb., 6A (JB, SW); 12 Sept., 2A 21 (J. Marquez); 22 Oct., 3A (R. Dalen); 4 

Dec, 3A II (JB); 23 Dec, 6A II (R. Dalen, DCo). 
1970, Bucksnort: 27 Jan., 6A II (DC, SW); 13 Feb., 5A (JB); 25 May, 4A (JB, 

DC, SW); 24 Aug., 1A (JB). 
1970, Agua Blanca: 3 Sept., 2A (JB). 
1970, Moorpark: 17 Jan., 3A (R. May); 28 Jan., 1A (R. May, P. Rains); 3 

Feb., 2A (R. May, P. Rains); 2 April, 2A (R. May, P. Rains). 
1970, Santa Paula Canyon: 13 Jan., 1 A (DC, JB, SW). 
1970, Sulfur Mountain: 5 April, II (J. Taft). 
1970, Thorn Point: 7 April, 1A (JB, SW); 20 June, 1A (R. Albee); 7 Aug., 1A 

(R. Albee); 17 Sept., 1 A (R. Albee). 
1970, Reyes Peak: 12 April, 2A II (DC); 28 May, 3U (JB, SW). 
1970, Mt. Pinos: 14 June, 1A 21 (KA); 4 July, 4A 4U (RMW); 10 Aug., 6U II 

(JB); 11 Aug., 6A (DC); 22 Aug., 4A 21 (SW). 

1970, Frazier Mountain: 10 July, 1A (HU); 12 Aug., II (HU); 19 Aug., 10A 21 
(HU);210ct., 1A(SW, HU). 

1971, Hopper Canyon: 26 Nov., 2A (DC); 1 Dec, 4A 21 (SW); 15 Dec, 3A 21 
(SW);17Dec,3AlI(DC). 

1971, Bucksnort: 24 Jan., 1A II (J. Marquez); 16 Feb., 2A II (JB, SW); 26 
Feb., 9A (SW, JB); 20 March, 5A II 2U (S. and S. Wilbur); 29 April, 1A 2U 
(SW, S. Rouleau); 14 May, 5A 21 (JB, SW); 4 June, 5A (JB, SW); 3 July, 
4A1I(DC). 

1971, Sulfur Mountain: 1 Feb., 2U (J. Taft); 17 Feb., 2A (J. Taft). 

1971, Potrero Seco: 1 April, 2U (G. Roby). 

1971, Matilija Creek: 6 April, 2U (E. Gregory). 

1971, Simi Valley: 2 May, 1U (N. Bean). 

1971, Moorpark: 5 May, II (SW). 

1971, Nordhoff Peak: 15 May, 1 A (R. Albee); 19 June, 2A (R. Albee). 

1971, Frazier Mountain: 20 June, 1 A (HU); 28 July, 2A (HU). 

1971, Mt. Pinos: 17 June, 1A (O. Clark); 10 Aug., 1A II (JB); 26 Aug., 4A 3U 
(JB, SW); 15 Sept., 1A (SW). 

1971, Reyes Peak: 27 Aug., 1A (JB). 

1971, Thorn Point: 12 Sept., 1A (A. Lopez); 15 Nov., 1A (A. Lopez). 

1972, Hopper Canyon: 10 Jan., 2 A 21 (JB, SW); 3 Feb., 3 A II (SW); 7 Feb., 
4A 21 (DC, F. Todd); 2 March, 5 A II (SW, JB); 2 April, 4 A 21 (DC, SW); 26 
May, 6A 21 (JB, SW); 1 June, 5A II 3U (SW); 3 Aug., 1A 21 (SW); 21 Sept., 
2A (SW); 30 Oct., 1A II (SW); 30 Nov., 3A 21 (JB, SW). 

1972, Potrero Seco: 25 Jan., 1 A (T. Ingersoll). 

1972, Santa Paula Canyon: 28 Jan., 3A 2U (D. Campbell, S. Kurcaba). 
1972, Matilija Creek: 4 Feb., 1 A (DC). 
1972, Reyes Peak: 2 May, 1A II (D. Schroeder). 
1972, Frazier Mountain: 20 Sept., 1A (HU); 15 Oct., II (HU). 
1972, Mt. Pinos: 18 June, 3A 3U (KA); 15 July, 1A II (W. Bremser); 1 Sept., 
3A (SW). 

1972, Simi Valley: 23 June, 1 A 1 1 (G. Williams); 1 1 Sept., 2 A (D. Hayes). 

1973, Hopper Canyon: 20 Jan., 4 A (JB); 31 Jan., 6A (SW); 26 Feb., 4 A II (T. 
Raley); 4 April, 3 A II (DC, SW); 2 May, 2 A 21 (JB, SW); 3 Oct., 3A (DC, T. 
Raley); 5 Dec, 5A (JB, SW). 



64 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



1973, Matilija Creek: 2 Feb., 1A (JB, SW). 

1973, Sulfur Mountain: 6 Feb., 2A (J. Taft). 

1973, Reyes Peak: 6 April, 1U (SW). 

1973, Thorn Point: 10 July, 1 A (JB). 

1973, Mt. Pinos: 11 July, 2A (SW); 28 July, 1 A 21 2U (KA). 

1973, Frazier Mountain: 25 July, 1 A (HU). 

1974, Hopper Canyon: 23 Jan., 3 A (JB, SW); 19 April, 6A II (JB); 14 June, 
4A (JB); 10 Sept., II (D. Moody); 12 Nov., 1A (JB, SW); 27 Dec, 2A (M. 
Montagne, D. Moody). 

1974, Bucksnort: 19 March, 3A (JB, SW). 

1974, Sulfur Mountain: 3 March, 1 A (J. Taft). 

1974, Thorn Point: 31 March, 1A II (T. Adams); 28 May, 1A (D. O'Connor); 4 

Aug., 1A (D. O'Connor); 10 Oct., II (D. O'Connor). 
1974, Frazier Mountain: 11 June, II (HU); 15 June, 2A (HU); 8 Sept., 3A 

(HU). 
1974, Mt. Pinos: 22 June, 1A (JB); 17 Aug., 2A II (JB). 
1974, Santa Paula Peak: 26 July, 1U (T. Sarzotti). 
1974, Matilija Creek: 16 Aug., 1 A (JB). 

1974, Nordhoff Peak: 10 Nov., 1U (E. Gregory). 

1975, Hopper Canyon area: 21 Jan., 2A (JB); 18 Feb., 2A II (B. Whiting); 25 
March, 21 (E. Abeyta); 28 April, 1A 21 (MSI); 11 June, 2 A (SW); 15 July, 
1A(JB). 

1975, Lake Piru: 22 Feb., 2A II (A. Moreno); 8 March, 7A (A. Moreno); 27 

April, 4A 3U (D. Moody, A. Moreno). 
1975, Whiteacre Peak: 27 March, 3A II (J. Farley); 10 April, 1A (SW); 29 

May, 2A (SW); 29 Dec, 1 A (SW). 
1975, Frazier Mountain: 11 June, 1A (HU); 5 Aug., 3A II (HU). 
1975, Mt. Pinos: 23 June, 1A (M. Davidson); 23 July, 2A (H. Herbert); 7 

Aug., 3A II (D. Van Vuren); 16 Aug., 6A (L. Kiff); 7 Sept., 2A (D. Van 

Vuren). 
1975, Thorn Point: 4 July, 1 A (J. Black). 
1975, Reyes Peak: 8 Aug., 1 A (A. Mercado); 3 Sept., 2A 21 (D. Van Vuren). 

1975, Sespe Canyon: 25 Sept., 2A (S. Kurcaba). 

1976, Hopper Canyon area: 6 Jan., 6A 21 (D. Moody, J. Rangel); 22 Feb., 1 A 
II (MSI); 24 Feb., 6A 21 (SW); 26 March, 3A (MSI, SW); 11 June, 1A (MSI); 
17Dec,3A(SW). 

1976, Lake Piru: 7 Jan., 2A (A. Moreno). 

1976, Reyes Creek: 24 Jan., 1A (T. Glenn). 

1976, Simi Hills: 22 Feb., 1 A (B. Margolis). 

1976, Matilija Canyon: 23 Feb., 1U (R. Nelson); 1 April, 1A (R. Nelson); 21 

Sept., 1A(D. Pacheco). 
1976, Whiteacre Peak: 24 March, 4A II (MSI, SW); 5 Oct., 2A (JB, SW); 13 

Oct., 3A II (MSI); 21 Dec, 3 A II (SW). 
1976, Thorn Point: 25 May, 1 A (JB, SW); 12 June, 1 A (J. Black). 
1976, Reyes Peak: 31 May, 1U (S. Kinchloe); 16 July, 1 A (JB). 
1976, Frazier Mountain: 3 June, II (HU) 
1976, Mt. Pinos: 19 June, 1A (F. Maupin); 12 Aug., 1A (D. Waite); 29 Aug., 

5U II (Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society). 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 65 



Los Angeles County 

1967, Piru Creek Gorge: 5 Jan., 1A (FS); 14 April, 2A II (FS); 18 May, 2A 
(FS); 3 Aug., II (FS); 12 Oct., 1A II (JB, FS). 

1967, Gorman: 24 Oct., 1A (JB). 

1968, Calabasas: 3 Jan., 1A II (R. Woolford). 
1968, Piru Gorge: 20 Feb., 1A II (JB). 
1968, Whitaker Peak: 12 April, 5A (JB). 

1968, Agoura: 15 May, 5A, II (D. Bafford). 

1969, Calabasas: 19 June, 2A (B. Mcintosh). 
1969, Piru Gorge: 29 Jan., 1U (G. Roby). 

1969, Warm Springs Lookout: 18 July, II (M. Stahl). 

1969, Slide Mountain: 6 Aug., 1A (GC); 5 Sept., 1A (GC); 15 Oct., 2A (GC). 

1969, Gorman: 21 Sept., 1A (J. Mills). 

1970, Canton Canyon: 26 Jan., 2A (S. Morgan). 

1970, Slide Mountain: 26 Feb., 1A (D. Roberts); 31 May, 2A (GC); 22 Aug., 
II (GC); 15 Sept., 4A (GC); 19 Nov., 2A (GC). 

1970, Liebre Mountain: 19 April, 3A 21 (J. Damann). 

1971, Slide Mountain: 25 Jan., 1A (JB, R. Bishop); 17 March, 1A II (M. Faa- 
borg); 5 May, 2A (GC); 28 July, II (GC); 25 Oct., 1A (GC); 29 Nov., 3A 
(GC). 

1971, Whitaker Peak area: 21 Aug., 1U (I. McMillan). 

1971, Gorman: 3 Nov., 6A (HC). 

1972, Slide Mountain: 24 Sept., 1A 1U (L. Forbis); 11 Oct., 1A (L. Forbis). 
1972, Quail Lake: 27 Sept., 1 A (DC, JB, SW). 

1972, Hungry Valley: 17 Sept., II (P. Greene). 

1973, Slide Mountain: 16 Feb., 1 A (JB). 

1973, Quail Lake: 30 May, 1 A (WF). 

1974, Warm Springs Lookout: 11 June, 21 (M. Stahl). 

1975, Slide Mountain: 25 May, 1A (DO); 6 June, 4A (DO); 6 July, 2A 1U 
(DO); 5 Sept., 2A (DO); 15 Oct., 1A (DO); 25 Nov., 2A II (JB). 

1975, Calabasas area: 20 Aug., 1 A (J. Dunn); 6 Dec, 1 A (L. Slate). 

1975, Red Rock Mountain: 24 Dec., 2A II (S. Hoddy). 

1976, Slide Mountain: 5 Jan., 1A (DO); 9 Jan., II (DO); 22 June, 1A (D. 
Mark); 24 Sept., 1A (D. Mark). 

1976, Gorman: 27 Feb., 1 A (A. Jensen). 
1976, Liebre Mountain: 1 April, 3A 21 (SW). 
1976, Red Rock Mountain: 29 June, II (S. Hoddy). 
1976, Quail Lake: 5 Dec., 2A (KA). 

Kern County 

1966, Bear Mountain: 17 May, 1 A (J. Mensch). 
1966, Grocer Grade: 8 June, 2A (R. Patterson). 
1966, Woody - Granite Station: 26 June, 1A (KA); 27 June, II (KA); 5 July, 

9A 21 (NW). 
1966, Tollgate Lookout: 7 July, II (PR); 11 July, II (PR); 19 Oct., II (PR). 



66 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



1966, Apache Saddle: 26 July, 2A (T. Ingersoll); 28 July, 1A (R. Fischer); 19 

Oct., 1 A II (J. Lane). 
1966, San Emigdio Ranch: 2 Sept., 9A (B. Easley). 
1966, Mt. Abel: 4-5 Sept., 2A (J. Mills). 
1966, Glennville: 12-18 Sept., 1-2 daily (EF). 

1966, Tejon Ranch: 24 Sept., II (WF); 13 Oct., 2A (WF); 14 Oct., 3A 21 (WF); 
19 Oct., 11 A II (D. Fry, R. Reed); 9 Nov., 11A (E. McMillan). 

1967, Tejon Ranch: 18 Jan., 10A (FS, JB); 1 March, 2A (WF); 21 June, II (J. 
Bailey); 29 Aug., 1A II 1U (C. Graves); 4 Nov., 5A (WF); 24 Oct., 16A 31 
(FS); 30 Dec, 1 A (WF, E. Cofer). 

1967, Granite Station: 25 Jan., 1 A (NW); 9 April, 2A II (NW). 

1967, Tehachapi: 28 May, 2A (F. Harris). 

1967, Bear Mountain: 2 June, 2A (FS); 3 Aug., 8A 21 (L. Bouscal). 

1967, Mt. Abel: 19 July, 2A (DS); 24 Nov., 1 A (R. Fischer). 

1967, Glennville: 11 July, 2 A II 4U (EF); 26 Aug., 3A (EF); 6 Sept., 2A 21 

(EF);22Sept.,2I(EF). 
1967, Breckenridge Mountain: 6 Sept., 2A (FS). 
1967, Tecuya Ridge: 17 Sept., II (C. Graves). 
1967, Tollgate Lookout: 24 Oct., 1 A (PR). 
1967, Oak Flat Lookout, Sequoia Natl. Forest: 18 Oct., 21 (J. Koroloff). 

1967, San Emigdio Ranch: 18 Oct., 1A II (J. Lane, R. Feldman). 

1968, Bear Mountain: 8 Jan., 10A 4U (L. Bouscal); 23 Feb., 3 A II (FS, RM); 
8 May, 1A 1U (E. Cofer, G. Franklin); 16 Oct., II (RP). 

1968, Tejon Ranch: 7 Feb., 2A (E. Cofer, WF); 8 Aug., 1U (DC, FS); 3 Sept., 
9A II (HC); late Oct., 25U (WF); 17 Oct., 8A (C. Graves, R. Fordice); 24 
Oct., 23A 31 (RM, R. Buss). 

1968, Kelso Valley: 14 March, 1 A (RP). 

1968, Caliente: 15 March, 8U (L. Barrett); 28 Oct., 2A (G. Beerline). 

1968, Granite Station: 16 April, 2A (NW). 

1968, Kern Canyon near Ming Lake: 18 April, 4A (E. Schneegas). 

1968, Yeaguas Mountain: 19 June, II (J. Edwards). 

1968, Glennville: 26 June, 2A (EF); 21 July, 1A (SS); 11 Aug., 1A (EF); 24 
Aug., 13A(EF). 

1968, Mt. Abel: 13 Aug., 3A 31 (J. Hunter). 

1968, Tecuya Ridge: 27 Aug., 1A II (D. Roberts). 

1968, San Emigdio Ranch: 16 Oct., 5A (J. Lane, D. Partridge). 

1969, Glennville: 1 Feb., 1U (R. Shackelford); 24 Aug., 5A (EF); 15 Sept., 2A 
(EF). 

1969, Garces Highway near Highway 65: 12 Feb., II (SS). 

1969, Mt. Abel: 16 Feb., 1A II (D. Taylor). 

1969, Tejon Ranch: 3 March, 1U (HC); May, 2A (WF); 15 Oct., 15U (H. 
Hagen, D. Zeiner); 22 Oct., 6A (RM, J. Reed); 29 Oct., 12U (WF). 

1969, Tehachapi: April, 1A (F. Harris). 

1969, Bear Mountain: 6 May, 2A (L. Bouscal); 15 Oct., 2A (RP, B. Easley). 

1969, Granite Station: 14 June, 1A (NW); 6 Sept., 2A (NW); 11 Sept., II 
(NW). 

1969, Tollgate Lookout: 7 Sept., 2A (PR); 15 Oct., II 1U (PR). 

1969, Santiago Canyon: 2 Aug., 1A (HC, R. Fischer); 15 Oct., 1A (D. Part- 
ridge, J. Lane). 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 67 



1970, Breckenridge Mountain: 8 April, 1A (C. Graves, W. Asserson); 23 

May, 1U (G. Payne); 22 Sept., 1 A (W. Asserson, R. Thomas). 
1970, Granite Station: 1 May, 3A (C. Graves, W. Asserson); 6 Sept., 2A 

(NW). 
1970, Bear Mountain: 8 June, 7A 51 (RP). 
1970, Glennville: 24 July, 8A 31 (EF); 4 Aug., 8A 21 (EF); 15 Aug., 4A 21 

(EF); 21 Aug., 5A 17U (EF); 3 Sept., 15U (EF); 4 Sept., 31 10U (EF); 14 

Sept., 13U (EF). 
1970, Tollgate Lookout: 17 Aug., II (PR); 10 Nov., 1A (PR). 
1970, Tejon Ranch: 27 Sept., 5A (WF); 12 Oct., 8A (JB); 29 Oct., 9A (D. 

Beauchamp, C. Graves); 12 Nov., 13A II 5U (SW, RM); 29 Dec, 11U (WF). 
1970, Woody: 18 Sept., 7A 21 (SS). 
1970, San Emigdio Ranch : 21 Oct., 1U (R. Thomas, D. Partridge). 

1970, McKittrick Summit: 4 Nov., 1A (K. Jones). 

1971, Caliente: 8 Jan., 1 A (R. Buss). 

1971, Tejon Ranch: 9 Jan., 8A II 7U (HC); 27 Jan., 10A II (HC); 24 Feb., 4A 
(SW, RM); 29 Sept., 5A II 2U (JB); 7 Oct., 17A II (SW); 14 Oct., 8A 6U (R. 
Beauchamp, R. Fordice); 6 Nov., 7A (D. Kirks). 

1971, McKittrick Summit: 13 June, 1 A (F. Todd, N. Gale). 

1971, Granite Station: 14 March, 21 (Mrs. F. Stockton). 

1971, near Arvin: 27 April, 1A II (G. King). 

1971, Tollgate Lookout: 9 July, II (PR); 29 July, 2A (PR); 11 Sept., II (IS). 

1971, Glennville: 21 Aug., 4A II (EF); 31 Aug., 6 A II (SW); 9 Sept., 12U 
(EF). 

1972, Granite Station: 23 Jan., 1A (EF); 23 June, 21 (NW); 19 Aug., 4A (M. 
Carver); 30 Sept., 3A II (NW). 

1972, Blue Mountain: 15 June, 3A (IS); 29 June, 3A II (IS); 1 Aug., 1A 21 

(IS); 15 Aug., 3A 12U (IS); 18 Sept., 2A 3U (IS). 
1972, Glennville: 29 Aug., 9A II (SW); 30 Aug., 6A 6U (EF); 2 Sept., 24U 

(EF). 

1972, Tejon Ranch: 31 Aug., 2A 21 (SW); 17 Sept., 1A II (R. Reed).; 4 Oct., 
5A II 1U (JB, SW); 11 Oct., 18A (KA, J. Tarble, K. Stager). 

1973, Granite Station: 28 Jan., II (M. Carver); 6 Sept., 5 A II 8U (M. Carver). 
1973, Tejon Ranch: 5 March, 21 (WF); 23 March, 7U (WF); 6 Aug., 4A (WF); 

7 Oct., 5A II 1U (SW, R. Erickson); 25 Oct., 12A II (JB, E. McMillan). 
1973, Bear Mountain: 4 April, II (J. Daum); 19 April, 4A II (W. Long, J. 

Daum); 2 July, II (L. Stevens), 13 Oct., 10U (WF). 
1973, Glennville: 13 Aug., 4A (E. McMillan); 22 Aug., 7U (EF); 28 Aug., II 

9U(EF). 

1973, Santiago Canyon: 22 Aug., 3A (RP). 

1974, Temblor Valley: 20 April, 2A (C. Twisselman). 
1974, Glennville: 22 April, 1 A (EF). 

1974, McKittrick Summit: 8 May, 1A (D. Clark). 

1974, Breckenridge Mountain: 25 July, 1U (R. Nelson); 7 Nov., II (J. 

Shryer). 
1974, Tejon Ranch: 9 Sept., 5A II (WF); 3 Oct., 11 A II (D. Hartman); 16 

Oct., 7A II (SW, M. Brayton); 17 Oct., 12 A (L. Kiff, E. Harrison); 14 Nov., 

5A1I1U(SW,JB). 
1974, Granite Station: 23 Sept., 1A (M. Carver). 



68 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

1974, Cummings Mountain: 29 Sept., 7A 21 (C. Swick). 

1974, Santiago Canyon: 17 Oct., 3A (R. Fordice, R. Buss). 

1975, Glennville: Aug., 6A 21 (EF). 

1975, Granite Station: 9 Sept., 3A 21 (N. Williams). 
1975, Tehachapi Pass: 19 Sept., 1A 1U (J. Chattin). 

1975, Tejon Ranch: 27 Sept., 6A 21 (JB); 3 Dec, 2A (SW). 

1976, Granite Station: 3 Jan., II (F. Stockton); 22 June, 1A 21 (F. Stockton). 
1976, Tecuya Ridge: 2 June, 2 A II (R. Long). 

1976, Tejon Ranch: 18 June, 2U (H. Einspahr); 26 Sept., 3A (KA); 10 Oct., 

4A 3U (KA); 14 Oct., 7A 31 (L. Kiff). 
1976, Glennville: 21 June, 4A 41 (G. Record); 7 Aug., 1A II (EF). 

Tulare County 

1966, Mule Peak: 15 June, 2A II (M. Barkley); 17 June, II (M. Barkley). 

1966, Cahoon Rock: 20 May, 1U (L. Kilgore, C. Castro). 

1966, Blue Ridge: 30 May-23 Aug., almost daily observations, 1-8 birds, in- 
cluding 1-21 (CO); 5 Sept., 1 A (CO); 17 Sept., 1U (CO). 

1966, Tobias Lookout: 10 Oct., 2A II (I. Stephenson); 25 Oct., 2U (I. 
Stephenson). 

1966, Milk Ranch Lookout: 19 Oct., 1U (M. Sitton). 

1967, White River: 3 Feb., 1U (FS); 22 Dec, 2U (EF). 

1967, Blue Ridge: 30 June, 1 A 21 (CO); 21 June, 2A (CO); 1 July, II 1U (CO); 
14 July, 1A (CO); 28 July, 1A 1U (CO); 7 Aug., 2A II (CO); 8 Sept., 1A 
(CO). 

1967, Milk Ranch Lookout: 12 Aug., 1A (A. Peterson). 

1968, White River: 5 Feb., 1A (SS); 13 Feb., 1A 2U (SS); 11 March, 3U (SS); 
31 May, II (SS). 

1968, Springville: 1 March, 1U (M. Mires); 25 Aug., 1A (L. Bastian). 

1968, Yokohl Valley: 24 March, 2U (M. Mires). 

1968, Jordan Peak: 31 May, 2 A (W. Beeler). 

1968, Blue Ridge: 10 June, 1A (CO); 14 June, 2A (CO); 25 Aug., 2A II (CO); 8 

Sept., 1A (CO). 
1968, Coldsprings Peak: 11-12 and 17-18 June, 1A each day (FS). 
1968, Mule Peak: 7 July, 1A (M. Barkley); 25 Aug., 1A (M. Barkley); 3 Oct., 

2A (M. Barkley); 17 Oct., 1 A (M. Barkley). 
1968, Shadequarter Mountain: 16 Aug., 1A (L. Bawden). 
1968, Colony Mill Road, Sequoia Natl. Park: 3 Oct., II (C. Shaver). 

1968, Tobias Peak: 4 Oct., 2A (I. Stephenson); 21 Oct., 1 A (I. Stephenson). 

1969, Lake Success: 9 March, 2U (M. Mires). 

1969, Blue Ridge: 20 May, 1A (FS, DC); 3 June, 2A (CO); 21 June, 5U (MS); 
23 June, 1A 31 (CO); 5 July, 8U (MS); 9 July, 11U (CO); 24 July, 2A II 
(CO); 9 Aug., 7U (MS); 29 Aug., 2A 21 (MS); 12 Sept., 1A (MS). 

1969, Coldsprings Peak: 25 Sept., II (N. Rickert). 

1969, near Orange Cove: 29 Sept., 1A (R. Bigard). 

1970, California Hot Springs: 7 April, 21 (B. Waldron, N. McDougald). 
1970, Blue Ridge: 28 May, 21 (CO); 5 June, 2A II (MS); 22 June, 4A (CO, DC, 

SW); 3 July, 3A (MS); 7 July, 4A II (CO); 27 July, 1A II (MS); 10 Sept., II 
(CO). 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 69 

1970, Mule Peak: 27 May, 2 A (E. Schneegas). 
1970, White River: 14 June, 1A (SS). 
1970, Yokohl Valley: 20 Aug., 2U (S. Stout). 
1970, Success Lake: 11 Sept., 1A (L. Eastian). 

1970, Milo: 24 Dec, 1 A (F. Lilland). 

1971, Mule Peak: 15 June, 1A (M. Barkley). 

1971, Blue Ridge: 22 June, 1A II (SW, CO); 2 July, 1A II (CO); 31 July, 2A 
(MS); 16 Aug., 5A 3U (MS); 27 Aug., 3A 21 (MS); 22 Sept., 2A II (CO); 10 
Oct., 2A (MS). 

1971, Frazier Valley: 11 Sept., 5A (L. Bastian); 15 Sept., 9A 21 (L. Bastian); 
22 Sept., 4A 21 (SW). 

1971, Park Ridge Lookout, King Canyon Natl. Park: 22 Sept., 21 (M. Sims). 

1971, Buck Canyon, Sequoia Natl. Park: 29 Sept., II (G. O'Connell). 

1972, White River: 30 Jan., 5U (SS); 20 April, 2A (L. Bastian). 
1972, Yokohl Valley: 17 March, 2U (H. Ruth). 

1972, Mule Peak: 16 May, 2A (M. Barkley). 

1972, Blue Ridge: 14 June, 2A II (MS); 27 June, 2A II (MS); 21 July, 1A 21 
(MS). 

1973, Springville: 21 May, 1A (J. Probasco, R. Sheldon). 
1973, Blue Ridge: 26 June, 3A 21 (MS); 29 July, 3A 3U (MS). 
1973, Coldsprings Peak: 15 July, II (R. Day). 

1973, Needles Lookout: 19 Aug., 1 A (A. Fritz). 

1974, Springville: 12 May, 3U (H. Miller); 21 Aug., 3A (V. Chapman). 

1974, Blue Ridge: 6 June, 2A (MS); 17 Aug., 3A (MS). 

1975, Blue Ridge: 5 June, 2A (MS); 11 July, 4A (MS); 14 July, II (F. Tor- 
reano). 

1975, Yokohl Valley: 21 May, 2U (G. Cunningham). 

1976, Blue Ridge: 16 June, 21 (F. Torreano); 13 July, 1A (F. Torreano); 15 
July, II (F. Torreano); 17 Sept., 2A (C. Layton). 

1976, Fountain Springs: 4 Dec, 1A (SS); 17 Dec, II (SS). 

Fresno County 

1968, Trimmer: 5 Feb., 2A (V. Murray). 

1969, Huntington Lake: August, 1 A (W. Cook). 
1971, Balch Camp: 25 Feb., 1 A II (R. Kramer). 

San Bernardino County 
1967, Deep Creek, San Bernardino Natl. Forest: 22 Aug., 1A (J. Light). 

Riverside County 
1969, Joshua Tree Natl. Monument: 31 March, 1 A (P. Hessler). 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 71 



APPENDIX II 



Removals from the California Condor Population 

Museum records and published reports give some indications of the timing 
and magnitude of losses within the California condor population. The follow- 
ing tables record these losses; however, they do not give a true picture of the 
actual effects of various mortality factors. For example, only a few Indian- 
collected birds are listed. Also, many condors were probably shot or other- 
wise disposed of over the years and no written records exist. Although I 
have tried to limit the "museum related collecting" to those specimens pur- 
posefully acquired by or for museums and other collectors, some birds lost to 
other causes probably are included. Therefore, the toll of "collecting" is 
probably overstated, and that of other factors understated. 

In the egg records, I have made no attempt to differentiate between the 
impact of oologists (those with real interest in keeping, cataloging, and 
studying eggs) and those who collected eggs to sell. Although one might 
argue that motives make a difference, it seems to me that the second group 
would not have existed had there not been demand from the first. 

As many as 13 museum specimens with incomplete data may duplicate 
published records for which no existing specimens have been found. There- 
fore, a minimum of 288 condors and 71 eggs are known removed from the 
population between 1792 and 1976. 

Abbreviations for age are: A, adult; I, immature; and U, unknown. Abbre- 
viations for cause are: S, shooting; MC, museum related collecting; OC, 
other purposeful capture; AC, accidental trapping; AS, accident or sickness; 
P, poisoned; and U, unknown. 

All specimen locations are in California unless otherwise noted. Abbrevia- 
tions used in "Reference" are: NHM, natural history museum; NS, no speci- 
men saved; SLU, specimen location unknown; AMNH, American Museum of 
Natural History; ANSP, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia; BM, 
British Museum; CAS, California Academy of Sciences; CFM, Chicago Field 
Museum of Natural History; HMCZ, Harvard Museum of Comparative 
Zoology; LACM, Los Angeles County Museum; MVZ, Museum of Verte- 
brate Zoology, University of California; UCLA, University of California at 
Los Angeles; USNM, U.S. National Museum; WFVZ, Western Foundation 
of Vertebrate Zoology. 



72 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 






»; 



c 
s- 

3 
c 



.5 o 

7) CO 
O) CO 



CQ Z 



CO 

c 

i- 

3 

o 

M 
s. 

-2 
5 
-a tt 

CO <3j 
CO r ~ ' 

._. to 



03 03 

z z 



Z °° 



55 55 Z 



CO 


6 

05 


05 r-H 


oj ^ m 

oo oo i-^ 

f-H i-H (—J 




s 

3 


^r -a 






co co «*r 




eu 


o c 


03 


CO CO 


.3 JS 3 


E 


3 


O- CO 

CO 

CO ■-• 


3 
O 


.3 "3d 
he 3 


M Moo 
3 3 — 


3 
CO 


% 


CO £ 


o 


3 O 


R R "O 


3 


~G 


CO CU 


X 


a 7 


Q Q c 


s 


ed 


O J 


1 


I I 8 


S-H 

be 


1 1 


1 


1 1 


1 1 » 


c 


g 


1 1 


p 


1 CN. 


DD ^ 


-— 





03 03 


1-3 


03 03 


J J o 


s 


33 


z z 


W 


z z 


03 03 H 


cc 


►J 



&> r-H 



P CO 

z 2 



t C 



'co <3> 



co CO CO ""*" ■"*" J* 



be 

3 




•| 03 03 


S 


B 
cu 


cp z z 


J 


J 


J < < 



c 

CO agj C 

- C ^ CO 

£ .£ -o c 

£L -3 CD 4J 

J? 3 CD 3 

03 02 0* 

I I I I 

03 03 03 CO § 

Z Z Z Z CQ 



2 ! I z ! 

CD " CO 



03 

s < s s 

CQ a CQ CQ 



u 



o o cj 
S2S 



03 03 03 






03 03 03 03 



o o o o o 
S S £ S £ 



ppppppppppppfcppDtx,D3ppppPSSPfeP 



bo 

< 



<p<DDDPPP<<~<PP~<<<P<PP<<P~~ 



O 


p c c 


C C 


4*3 


bD o o 


o o 


ho 


§ § g t- ho ho 
be ho ho ^ .5 ■£ 


4J 4-3 




ho ho 

c .£ •£ 


CO 


" I * * xi j; 


o x; j= 


CO 
3 >• 


J- j-. i- ?*^ ^ ^ 
O O O c co co 


bC co co 

CO CO CO 


>. >> >> s ^ ^ 

4_> 4^ 4J CJ » - 


6££ 


O "S 


c c c U >, >> 


sT >. S^ 

e C C 


O 3 


3 3 3 j- ^ -£ 
o o o 13 £ £ 


cd O 


Coui 
Cou 
Cou 


CD o 


aaaooo 


+J iH 


co co co X3 -^ -M 


q, Jt! J»S 



•3 O 



>.>.>.>. 



Oj § § 3 g 

«■> <-> o o o o 



co >,(JO OU ,2 .2 



Oycococ03c0c0 



_ 2i CO CO CO CO 

j* ^ £ E E B 



o 



o o o o <a <*- 2 



— ^y ^y '■y 



CO fl CO O 



■-y — ^y "-y ^y 



SCL,OOOSaOJ000203030303CJ 



u 



c 
o 
bo 

s- — ' — 

O c c 

.. 3 3 
>. O O 
-CJO 

3 

C 

u 



CO CO o 0) 

OZUh 



CU 0) 






m a) b a> a> 

. 41 U C ti 4) 

S c c it: c c 

§ 5 .2 « © © 



CM r-4 00 



«J CO CO ^ 

r^ « ^ O O ^ 

J_i Ji >,» oo cc f" 



J2 L' -H -H 



CO CM 
CO CN 00 
iT. m i— i 



Z PL, 

oo co 



s s 



a £ 

(m CP 

< a 



oo 
^ ■-< 



^2 CN 



CO cu 
00 -Q 

^ £ 

~ CD 

>- > 

a o 






r* C ^^ 

E a» -2 

u « o 

-3 a f> 

a. cp « 

<u 03 O 
03 



<w »5H " r <u oo 75«oocomco«*o>o 

^H--HCOO32O&- l --4<Z^Hr-Hr-Hr-<^r-H00--(<N 



i-H CO CO 

in in m 

oo oo oo 



3 ^3 



00 CO 



< 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 73 



CO g ~* 

T3 co 5 a 



5gx"c 2 ^ x x x 

_ __ O ^ O 5) C! 



2 



sgggs ^Is^lss. ^s§»^ 111-- 

^ S § X X X I I g I I0j. gggg|c|NU| | | „ g „ y Q t jjjj 

3SO>UUOZZSZ2:lZ D D D D X SezzzoSiejSd 



o w cj o o o r _ r . o r . r _ o <j o o a o o o u o o o o o o a 





cc 


CO 




CO 


co 


CD 




-r 


O 




N 


X 




~-"l 


S3 


S3 


a 

< 


S3 


U 


O 


> 


S S 


§ 


I X 


j 



x x — x x — 



- c ^sss sr j ^'s^ssss 



3S^3^^^^5»33S3 PDDDD SD^DSSSfc^SD 



P„ <-^^)<^D<D < <-Z3^D<<«<<<< 



>, >, >. >■ >. § U >. >, o >. >. >. >. >. c >, >■ O >> >> >> >> 

§22 ggOi'.sgcgS 22222 2 3 •= •;= - E 2 .* § § § § 

oCu o £ J § ~ u § 5 s CCCCC J c - 5 z ~ 5 ° ° ° cS 

iiicSi< iijaEis 2 s S 3 S bj2 ouo 5^qSSo2 

C C C ^3 E CO ~ C - ' CECCC -* ;. ~ ~ ~ **" C 

^ — O — — r- 'S- — ' C 3 -3 ^ C ^ ^ /* — ~ C > " ' — i — • ■ — . 3CCCC i— " o 

m « m ~c3„C3ra^i-^;^ .3 .3 .r. .3 .3 co--re<5X:a:ccBc8caca,3 

*» 2 -- w X ^ — r- X X :— 2 X 22222 03 Otf DD QQ CQ X V X X X O 2 



i~ _. x 



OC lC iC lO lO 



2?&-i si Is bbbbb 



^ A CQ CO C<3 

3 3 3 3 3 



,™ x x x t- ^ *- oo r- ^i oo o ^ j ji ji j ai n 





















X 








X 
X 
X 


— 


X 

2xx 
oo x 






y 








>. 


- 
3 


JS 2 x 






3 

St 

9 

<; 


1 


I - 

X 


X 


9 
c 

£0 


0! 


2 Man 
1 May 
June 


X 

X 


X 
X 




X 


X 


X 




CD 


X 


X 


-N 


^^ 


^^ 


•-^ 


r? 


i — 


H ^H (N 


1 — 1 


1 — 1 



74 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



K 



m os 

CN OS 

o <x> 

2k 

fa 2 
O < 



o 



o ^ 
n fa 
hi 

< s 

*H 3 

O CD 

to 

>> 3 

co "^ 
CO <»» 

c JS 



C CO CD 

CD CM CN 

j~ os os 

, fa fa 



CO 

'2 
58 a 

CN cO 
gO 

ca a> 

►: 3 

g fa 

S S 2 

S w 3 

CD 3 aj 



2 Q 



P ' ' 
J CO 03 

co Z Z 



Qz 

C 5 



p 

03 03 < 



^ 3 



CD ^ 

fa o 



S 2 

C3 iO 

1—1 1—1 

*• 2 

fa s 



a 

< 

CO 

a 

0) ft) 
•3 ^ 

CD « 

>> CO 

o 

«-. a to 

-2 r C ^ 
73 03 3. 

03 03* K 03 
< < J < 

OOtflO 



- © >> 



-G 


ea 


on 


CN 






-0 


N 




> 



< CO s 



c os 
G os 

^ 2 
o ^ 

IE 

03 < 



OCJCJOCJn „ OOCJOOO03OOO 



™ 000.- 00000^ 



CO 



S^ppppppPSSSPPSPPPfePSP^SSSSS 



be 

< 



<<<~ppp<p<<<<<<<pp<<<p<<<<~p 



c 

3 

3 2 

O CO 



CD 



CD 



Sc3 



>> >> >> >» 



Q 



o V 



S? <5 -3 -a 



03 -G- 

c 2 

03 K 



C 
3 
O 

< c 

to g 

J fa 



« G 3 

C 3 © 

3 O O 

CJ° >> 

U CO g 

o 3, a) 

co "S C 

^ S o 

fa > § 



c c 

3 3 

O O 

O O 

o o 



c c 

2 3 

o o 

O O 

- ° ±2 

be bC bC2 

" .S o 

Q -2 



Q Q 

c c 

CO CO 

03 03 



G 
3 O ^ 

o a c 

U M 3 

^j O ° 



CO 



be .22 -^ 

5 J £ 



£ 5 

co£ 



g fe 

W 3 

3 o 

co bo 

OQ .8} 

co Q 

4-3 

c c 

CO CO 

03 03 



>> >> 

*j — 

c c 

3 3 

O O 

O O 

o o 

bo bo 

CD CD 



s 

N 

3 O 

C, bO 

CJ CD 



c 


>> 




C 


3 


*J 




3 


O 


G 


>, 


O 


O 


3 

C 
O 


c 


CJ 


os 


3 

O 


CO 


CO 


as 


O 


CO 


J2 


Oj 


^2 



sg> 



Q Q co Q o co < 



G G 

CO CO 

03 CO 



G G a 
CO CO CO 
03 03 CJ 



G co 
co O 
03 J 



O 
bO cfl 

.Jffl 
Q _co 

G C 
CO CO 
03 03 



2§ 










os « 2 










00 co 










2 as 










3 ^ 00 


03 





Q 


a 


00 


a> 


CTj 


as 


00 


00 


00 


00 



o £ 



1— I l~3 00 1— I 1— I 1— I 1— 1 



o 
o os 
os 00 
00 --i 



5s .c 



CO _c 

3? i 

3 O CD 



S2 



hhOihhHjhcC 



>> « 



OS 

co co co °o 
os os os "" ' 

co 00 co •>, 



os 2C 
00 os 



CO 



<N < r-H < 



.> a. w 

3 CD ^ 

E003 Q 

3 



i-H CD 

•c 2 

< O 5S 



O 10 o 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 75 





^ 5 
1:0 s 






co 




co 




10 ft 






CM 




m 




co « 






co 




CO 


§ 


e s 

0> "eO 






>> 
oo - s 




a 

3 
O 


X 

z 


VIus 
ask; 

897 






1— J w 

oo a3 
o > 




CO — , 

3 ,-h 


CO 

« 2 °° 


.2 •§ » 

>-. ^5. CD 


OS 


OS 




Oi 


^ co o 
2 oi •*" 


O <J> CO 


i3S g 


<J> 


a> 


X a> 


Oi 


co E^ Oi 


u O ^H 


CO 


CO' 


CO 


-u """J CO 


CO CO <N 


C m O 


■* 


t 


Z CO 

2 co 


Tf 


c ro ^ 


anta B 
NSP3 

NSP6 


O *>K 


X X 


X 


°gs 


oyal 
asti 
LU, 


Z Z 


c 

c 2 
.2 2 


Z 


« -• z 


co < < oi X co 


<<>0<tfCQ< 













— 












t. 

























•-<- 








S 




o 








X 


CO 


tt 








2 




4J 




OS 


a> 




in 


M 


o 


X 


en 

X 


c 
o 


z 


J2 


i — i 


_g 


C 


CO 


J3 


o 

X 


"oo 


~. 


z 




od 


N 


£ 


£ 


B 


ra 




U 


■— i 


>-» 


* 




•-C 



*r| CO 

<* _ lO 

t— 00 hr 1 Oi O © ■— ' O) 

t^oicTi « a o oo o h 
coc-t^oZt~ooToo 
>— i co oo co oo oo co oo "O 

OCOCOoOTJcOCOTfCO Js 
00 '- , "- 1 IO CO i— I i— I (Nl ■— I .O 

5™ftIft!2s K 5Kgcoffi2Sffi N^g§^2 N Sy 

3 nZ £^£co"zZo|zZ^Z_^ 5 ^ co «D 
oSS<Scoco<§coco2cogo S j j -£ "aS ^ 

"UKDDJJDDKDZ XcocoqQSo 



ooooooooooooooooooocoooooo r _oooooo 



5DDfc5D^^^^DD5DDDfc.PD2D5 S 3 D D S D 



<< M HH<<«<<<««HH< M <-,< M «<HH«<H-D« <MM „^ 



>> >> 

-" 3 5-" ■" 

>> ^ 3 n n 3 *^3 *-> -u 

>.>>>>>> "£ >> -^ r 9 >> ~ « r 9>>>>>>5 r 9 >>>>>>>> >,= = >,>,>> 

3333C ° §§23 C<n<««£3330£3333 3 O C_> 3 3 5 

ocjcjoo £^JSo ogg3^000j£^0000-g0a)£ocj> 

>>>>>,>, ° . ti >> §) « >> 2 ^ en en O co >>>>>> H « >>>>>>>> 3 >> "3 "a> >> >, P r 

H)aiO)o; ffl cb?coffl4) , 2 B ,.2.2 VJ fflCo4iii)M t o«'»«<tO a? M M c? 5? ™ 
^^^^SSi--25Wupr33Q)Wuuuc ra ^^^^r^»-cct->-2 
*j*j*j<-> s B u U s *j ,o 3 J J ™ « *j *> ii < « *j *j -u *j - 42<r<"J2*SQ 
cccc^_c c ^c^;^__S-ccc^^cccc£c^^cc" 
«^^^a> s ° co ca^ coaj co cojr ca^,^^ o co^^^nS* ,2 o o 3 3 co 
SSSS>coScocoSo>cocoOcoSSSjcoSSSS^S,-jjSSco 



5S °° oo 

^go-a^ l o^^ l cO-oco S ^°o^^^ SS 5^^ 3 Sec fflU) |!Z 
WH<;<;HNt-co^<rtHH(BooiN^i;^wiN^<cohHH cncnZoo 



76 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



N 



c 

CO CN 
-3 CN 



a 



-o 
c 

CO 

© -n 

00 5 (1) 

o 2 .3 
© • ~ 

i— I CO £ 

>> g CO 
•s §•! 

fc -S ~3 
- co ■ 



=RP 



» j j .. 
> CO CO Z CO 



>> CO 



.-a .-a <* a 

CU CU ►-, ^ 

> > a z 

c c 2 co 

D D < D 



oo oo rt 




© O T 




© © co 




■- 1 -- 1 oi 




■" -" CO 


© 


CO CO ZJ "1 


T 


CN 


CD CU CO 




-w *-> N © 




CO CO cj - 1 


£ 

fc 


CO* co' S S 


Z2E05 


O 



S cj 



oo 

© CM 

^H 00 

CO CO ^ 

S D Z 

fc J CO 

CJ CO P 



c 

CO 

be 

12 



CO 


© 


3S 


CN 


X 


X 


CO 


U3 


ss 


Z O 


CO 


< 


D 


•J 



CN 



O 
>> 

IS 

■is 

D X 



X 



CO 



2 



CN 1/5 

m © 

co © 

X X 

z z 

< < 



u 



CJCJCJCOCJCJCJCJCJ 



ss^sss 



CJ o 

o o 



CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ 



s. 



d^^^^ddsd^^ddd^ 



X> fc D fc O 



be 

< 



<h<<<<<<hP3h<<<<m<hhhh<<<hh<< 



s c 

3 3 

o o 

CJ CJ 

.2 .2 go §o 

C C cu cu 

3 M 3 C 

CO CO CO CO 

CJ CJ CO CO 



O 



CJ § 

CO © 

>- CJ 

-P 5 



CJ 



'S 




Ih 




G 


CO 


t«H 


hh 


a 


c 


0) 


CO 


CJ 


CO 



CO .2 



a >> >> 

g s s 

«, CJ o O 

wu « uo 

_, _, 3 cu cu 

CO CO fJ i_, n. 
a^ 3-2.2 
S « * 3 3 .. 
COCO>E~'E-'GOCOO 



CQ cu 'a 

V3 >-" 

co Q o 

+j *+h 

3 3 a 

CO CO CO 















>> 






c 


3 


HI 

c 


M 

3 

O 

a 












>> 


c 

3 


-4J 

c 






3 

O 


3 

O 


3 

c 










>> 


3 
3 



3 CJ 






(J 

CO 


CJ 

CO 
Ih 


CJ 

OS 


o 

a 

CO 


3 








*-> 


O 


O 


3 co 






CO 


CO 


CO 


hO 


3 








c 


CJ 


O CU 






-O 


-3 


-3 


o 

CO 

'3 


c 


CO 

'3 

Ih 

c 


co 

'3 
o 


CO 

'2 

Ih 

c 


3 

O 

O 

3 


o 
bo 

Cu 

q 


>> 

Cu 

u 

cu 


CJ -3 
co w> 

Ih 3 

5 < 


CO 

"3 

u 

O 


CO 

"3 

Im 

c 


Ih 

CO 

03 

CO 


Ih 

CO 

CO 

CO 


Ih 

CO 

cq 

CO 


O 

CO 

Ih 

3 






H-« 






3 

O 


-U ^ 




<4-H 


-u> 


HJ 


4-i 




-H 1 


sa. 


-3 


-C3 


CO 


3 


3 co 


W 


-3 


C 


3 


c 


3 


3 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


a; o 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


<X> 


O 


o 


O 


CO 


> J CJ CJ 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


> 



© © 
© © 
oo oo 



© © 
© © 

oo oo 



^H © CO CO 



>. >> 00 
CO 



5) be 



C g S S >,< < Z 

1 00 © •<** 3 r^ ^H C- 



© © © © 

© o © © 

© © © © © 

COCO© ,_, ,_, ,_, >— | CO 

© © 0* ^. ^ *J +J © 

_O r-l ©COCOCOCO© 

©©. — !© 3 3 3 3© 



'C © So be be 5d 

. D, -- 1 3 3 3 3 



>, >. 



o 

© r 2 ,2 © "3 

H fc W CN >S 



^ © 



>. 5 



CN CN 

© o 
© © 



© O lO lO 



o © © 
© © © © 



< ° 



s 

cu 00 



9 9 © 



~©©©© r ^ ^©w-.,r^r© 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 77 



> E C !7 

3 -13 !^ c 2 P ca O ^S 



CO 



I|I||II Ifiiillfl 111 llllllilll 

Z -g c c/3 cfl ^ J J cSZ2 55 g £ n wj^^ .5d.^SjoNj *uo 
w o §<<Sou §Sa)ccto § ^ .S .i r 2 (« > j co2o<>ow<< 



x 






fcfc^^^DSfcPfc DDfc^fc^^SDDPfeSlDfcDfc 



«M<<<M^)<<< M <MM M <<<<^MMM^M<M MH ^<< 



>>>>>, -w -g 

« ■« « C 3 

c C g >>>,3 >> >> >> O 

^ 3 3 3 -w *-> g "S *» -" r ^ 

^OOOBSqj^ b c c O 

>>>>C 000 O OO c . - * O >> mm^^O>> >»>»§ >> ° >> >, 

fifio22200C3--'gUc -g -g g -£ O g e c O e .2 e e 

°° S>« S Slag >,32 S^°.253°c5l .2 § uu lc u °"^ 

33Qcaccc0<<pQ2 OO < 3 O^ ( - , 3y ) <3o^33<23J33 
BEEEEErccoCn-A-A-^wEa-^-^EcOcnEai-EEcc-SECEE 

o c 



CCCEEEcococS— > • — .-^ocj-^-^CcoaiC^ai-EE 
mcsssiijooni^Mffl coocucacac3cui-o<ucaa>(ua> 



J D > cfl > 



go ggg 

§§ L.gog I^S ^:^ - - ^2 

gS ^ ^ 2 2 2 ^ !3 .3 ?« p 0505-H <& & 

zl ZL — O^" -1 2c COnE ,-1 ^H l-H Z^^H 

_, _, t. o 3 >i >> J^> EE4> SEW r3 33 ,1* »-« "73 

n n to c ^ co ■* ^<; s. J? J? ,z co ^ ^ st-'SuQoio- i a a «) n n co ? o- 

ai05a)«H«H05aioio^liNCDtooic-oo> HN «j H oi oiw ^ 3 a> cs o> 5" 

^^^^^^H^H^HCN^;CNCN c >l^'-<CNl^H-Ht^t/)CO^H^H^CC(X)>-3^i-i>-c<CN 



78 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 









< 










CO 










00 .-H 




o 










13 






co 




00 H 




P 










gOH 


os 




5 




< < 




c 
o 










(n CM (N 
>-, CO CO 






r— 1 lO QJ 


















O, OS OS 


OS 


H I— 1 r 


O 


c c 




go 


P- 


e- 






t Servi 
useum 
useum 


1 A 

3 3 
cu S 
co to 

3 3 




S S « < « E 

£ }g CO CO CO a 

K 2 « « m 5 


O 
CN 


o o 

CD cl) 


o 


OS 


CO 
OS 


OS 


00 
30 


CO 


S.2 


^ " Oi OS C75 CO 
^ X! - 1 - 1 - 1 3 


i-O 

CO 

X 

2 


"53 "cu 
CO CO 


o 
as 


§ s s s s 


5 >_ In 1- !_ 

[V cu cu <d g; 


O ~ 
OX) CO 

Q <s 


^ ^ -*-> -4-i -*-3 ^5 

be O jj -ij 4-> *5 
CD *£ O O O i_ 

S .? u y v S 

Q Hi CO CO CO a) 


CO CO CO 


co c 


* C C 


C C 


C C 
CO CO 


- . . - . a 

5 co co co co o 


<<<<<<<<< 


CO CD CD 


0> 0> 


<QOOOJJJJJZPPQQ 


CO CO 


tfiZZZZD, 






_^ co co 

m CQ CQ 



c c c 

C3 co eg 
CO CO CO 



OS 

- 1 3 

b o 

cu +-» 

oo j3 JJJ 

CO CO cu 

2 S -i 

i~ < hM CO 

"2 ^ oo 
c« t. oo 
S aj oo 

oi? 

co' co" > 



a 



CJOCJOCJUOOOOCOOOOCJCOCO., 



< < 



CO CO CO _ 

< < < D 



E-i co _, 

< < ^ 



^D^fcD^fcfc5fc5P^5fc5DDDDfe^DD55 



be 

< 



<H <<MM<<H<M<<<<<<MppDP«<M<P<P 





3 




s c 


4-3 




C 




3 




3 3 


B 




3 




C -U -|_> -i_> -U -U — -t> .U -U -U 




O O 


3 




O 


>>>>>>>> 




° >> « « « ^° 





>. 


O 


-tJ *J *J *J 




jg *J CO CO CO -4-> eg 




CO 


C 3 3 3 


3ccccc£cccc 




CO 3 >>'£'£'£ 3 CO 


CO 


Q 


^ ^ tl 


3 3 3 3 


Oa3333cc3333 




a 

— 

CO 


^ ^ « 


O O O O 


Oooooojsoooo 




-23 3 ° ° o 0.0 

CO ^ 3 ;3 33 33 w CO 


3 3 CO 


CJ O CJ O 


j^CJOOOO jjUUOU 


2 


O 


Co" CO CO CO 


<Hdc5ojcij«rnBjffliai8 


'3 


CQcoOcacacocooa 


CO 


O O rn 


>-. t- 1- 1- 


j-t,i.>->_>-, HH i-i>-,i-,i- 


u 


3O000 b 


1- 


CJO 


3 3 3 3 


^33333cc3333 


o 


ea 3 ^ ^ ^ ^ 3 aj 


co 


3 


- - w 


■4J -!-> *J -i-> 


tJ.U.U.U>4->-U.i_j-l->-i->-U-t-> 


tfr-4 


•^■yCjjasiiw 




-*-j 


C C -3 


c c c c 


33 


c 3 b. .!=,.!=, .S, a c 


c 


3 


S-. >-, 3 


CU CU cu cu 

> > > > 


ScucucDCDCDfflCUcucucuca'co'CUcuajcacacuca' 
S>>>>>C0>>>>OC0>^PQCQpa>C0 


CO 

CO 


Cb 

> 


CU CU cO 

W M co 



191€ 

917 
191 
191 




-«>>>> 


cn 


'C >i CO CO 


1 ' 


^ ^ ^ t~ 


cu 

3 
3 


cn m ^h <-h 


•-3 



000 

CM CM CM 

os os os 



co co 

CM CM 

OS OS 



CO ^? 



ooococoososososasos 

nCOnNNHHHHHH 



^H OS _g 

<M -S 

-^os 9 

Se^cmcmcmco^o 
S'Jco co co co co w 
5 3ososososost~ 



ra ~ CO co 

2 S 2 2 



^q2 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 79 



£ O ifl-^ in CO _C 00 CO 00 Oi 01 

oi 13 as _ m 10 cnioinic m 10 

rT«^ >n in o> rj. aj 10 iij in ib in 

■^ 5C (C CO CD CD 

CD CD CD CD CD 



^ u T3 



H- CD OS'-' T U Ol O) O! Ol O) S 03 <U 

l-H ,_, ,— I 3. O £ ^ ,_, ^h ■— I .— I -G ,— I CO 

r -r ,-. „ o ^ -s ^ —• >> c >>-:—; — • -: —• co _• 

^ fer^cc cogcaajr-nSajraiaca coca _, cs 



Qj 






CD CO 



CO' > 2>tfl'oU S > > co~ < CO CO CO CO CO co co co* > co co < s > co > > CO CO CO 



^£<coco 5< 35 < CCD ^< DDcfiDccpD:)DD(/5D < DD < 



ppfeppD DDDP^DSDDDDDD3DS3DDDDDDD 



^h<m 3 < <hDDh3D<d<<D3<dd<d»d<hhmPm 



C C 3 £> 

^ 3 3 3c 

c o cj u g £ 

>>>>>>§ >> >> S 2 2 ° >> § >> 

4-> -U 4-> ,V -U *-l Q. Q. U. _. 4-3 >»«*■' 

ceeO c c "> m M £ c u o c 

W U 3 U ai 3 3 UU ,33 u ,32 t/ ,333ca333^333 c 33-^'-' 

j-j-OjhCcj 0^^3CJ03Cj£30CJO„CJOO^CJCJCJo0^i; 

f 3 c |< 3 cSS^cc^c^JccciSccclcccSc 03 ^ 

C. 3 »-< S co >- i-CCCk-^-Ci-— C'-i-i-C'-'-'-Cfc.fc-i.oi'-CC 

o> <i> <x> cu o <n iiiiuiiiaiiiaiMaioisiivaiiiiMiuvvmmiviiibaiigCy 

> > tf > J * tf > > CO « « CO « O CO * « * CO ^ * * > « tf * tu * CO > 



o ss 

^ !£ o 2 ~ <° 

— ' •£ CD -*. 00^0)101005 — 

.a" 2 bo Kgir,H»(D _C CD CD — , 

fiiOCOCO^OJ- P cd cd u £ 



e3 -^ 



2 

x 


S3 






a 

3 


V 


Sj 


^H 


C^ 


< 


Ci. 


c 


T 


Tf 




3 


09 


~ 


*-r 


CN 


»-a 


— H 


iH 


C) 



3 CT> CT3 CTj CT5 CT5 



O ^ u o 

— — — rt N < - ■— i -< <<<<CN<-h&c,CMCN<Q 



•n- T in iininioon_on n "3 3 



80 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



ti 



CD CO CO 

> <L> 01 

•— +1 *J 

15 o o 

. c c 

o 2 2 c 

N .i .2 2 

co *~ *- .£ 

CD >- >- CD 

•S 3 ^ 

j £ £ " 



M 



bo R 



. . ^ ^ CD 

oWKt/lffl 3 
J Z Z D D •= 



CD .£ 

a — 

CD >> 



X 
Z 

S 

3 

'5dS 

Z ^ _co _co 

Co cd "ai 
ir u- co co 

2^3 3 

j < ca pa 



c ,_ 



S S 2 



z z 



at/; « 



CO CO CO 



■c -c U - Z 

£ £ < X X 

cl a- ,j Z D cj O 

















c s 
















o o 
















-u -w 
















J5 — 












£ 


£ 


"cd "cd 












3 


^ 


.* J4 


~ 


— 


~ 


~C 


^O 


m 


Oj 


co _co 


cd 


01 


dj 


cd 


cd 


CO 


CO 




>. 


>. 


>. 


>. 


>. 


3 


3 


lO co 


c 


c 


c 

i- 


c 


C 


s ^ 


(M CM 

CO CO 


*j 


-*-» 


-taj 










oo oo 

CO CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


co 


3) 


a> 


CD 


CD 


CD 


a. 


'So 


'5x 

CD 


-a 


"C 


T3 


~ 


— 


a- cl, 


X 


7) 


X 


X 


X 


c 


3 


X CD 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


(4 
cd 


In 

cd 


Z Z 



CJ CJ O CJ CJ < < 



X, CD 



DDDCO 



CJOCJCJCJCJOCJ 



CJCJCJCJCJOCJCJCJCJ 



CD o 



X 



D D D D fr- 



Dpfr-S^P-^^^^^^-^-^^^SP^ 



be 
< 



- < < - < 



<~<<~<<~D~dd;d3;d<<DD 



-3 


-£ 


c 

CO 


>. 




CO 


co* 


£ 


-u» 


a> 


CO 


£ 
o 


C 


X 



CJ CJ 



>> 












133 *J 


a 


C 






O CO 


£ 

3 
O 


CO CO 

is s 
o o 


c 


>> 

c 


5.1 


o 

CO 


CO 


X 


3 



3 
C 


— CD 
CD Cj 


t. 


'3 


£ 


CJ 


o 


CJ _, 


3 


j 


J 


c 


3 


c .£ 
3 T3 


3 


3 


c 


i- 


s_ 


CD 


cd 


CO 


cd 


CD 


CD CD 


> 


X 


X 


tt 


W 


> .3i 

CO o 

•*= 3 
CO CD 
3 .3 
CD > 

s * 

■S £ 

8.1 

CO -U 


I - 










CJ 


CX> 










bD CD 


Ci 










3 =3 


*— 1 










& 8 

O 3 


>> 


CM 


CM 


■^ 


CD 


■— 


C- 


t— 


t— 


C- 


3 


05 


as 


Ol 


~ 



CD CO CO CO CO 



o o 
CJ CJ 



£ 3 



D CJ 



C 3 CO CO CO 


be b£ 


•i £ 'B '2 'S 


CD CD 


O O >- »- }- 
C 3 O O £ 


5 5 


-* -* 33 — ^3 


3 3 


3 3 cO CO CO 


CO CO 


P D CJ CJ CJ 


X X 



3 3 3 3 

£ £ -S 5 

o o c o 

3 3 3 3 

J£ _* _* Ji 

3 3 3 3 

D D D *J 





c 


c 
is 


3 

is 


3 


3 

is 


c 


o 


c 


c 


c 


o 


C 


c 


3 


c 


q 


c 


^£ 


^ 


-* 


jj: 


M 


M 


3 


E 


3 


c 


3 


3 


3 D D 5 D D 



C^C35C^C~-CDOOOO'^ , t^O , <4 , "^ , '<J , '^ -T TC^t~C71CTl 

NTtioinioininxaocjicTiOiOiCJisaicncD 
oocooooooocooocoooooooooxooocoooooooo 



fcuiHfaH'i-&H E-h£cQ 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 81 



fa 




,— 1 








a 




-^ 








0) 
C/j 




S § 








E 

c 

i- 
a> 

bJj 

C 


E 

3 
<D 

3 


eden) NH 
M 4197 
land) NH 






c 
o 


O 


> hh a> 




s 




o 
c 

CM 

-r 


C 

•5 
>- 

C 


burg (S 

burg N 

(Switz 




z 

ad 


DQ 

Oi 

T 

CO 




0) 


c c « 


z 


c 


CM 


Cu 


pq 


a> a> > 


c 




03 


jx 2 


■rt 


N 


z 


c 

03 


o o a> 


§ 


c 


> 


< 


OQ 


a o a < u 


£ 



0) 3 

bo a> es S 

=3 3 -a J 



"* a be 

So— c 

s < 



o 

3* '« 
33 



3 E 
t § 
"> 3 



££ §:§§© & s 8 c°£S§8gg§£ S 

550«KSEn C g 3— NNffiSa3a5ccc5 « 

ggcfcZZZO^ * ^UOZ5 > >^5-2 



E 



a 
x> 
o 
u 
a 
o 

E 
o 

73 



bo 

.E « 

>> S "S >, >> 

£ I 1 I § § I 

§ o £ S 5o 5 § 

oboo£oi-ooooOi-i---oo o oo^coo^^oooocj 

c3cc-a c <S cccc c°°<S cc T, cc 5fe c <2 Q S55Sa 

c^ccociaccccajloraracc .o ccs.SceawCCCCcc 



b0500000'-^^H(MiMCOCOCOCOCOCO'<r o 

g)l-ll-ll-ll-li-l.-ll-Hl-ll-H^H^H^i-ll-l.-l.-lt-l Q 

CO Z 



82 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



K 



O 



w 



-o 








> 




o 




u 




£ 




3 


So o 


v 


& -S -u 


to 


3-2 JK 


3 




03 -rt 


2 " - 1 


B c 


h m ai X 


CO J5 

13 tn 


c3 t> «5 z 


S3 i-i 


^3 - jr -i a '-fl 


> -a 


u S § S S S S 1 


a> j- 
g 5 * 


&0 O O O O Cfl o 


P4 


p4_JhJ.JHJ.-3QO 







DPPDPDPD 



< 



<D<<<D<< 



c O 



J* ^4 M M J4 C-^-3 

cccccoiCca 
ppDDD>DO 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 



83 



Oi 



c 3 

CD Oj 

C 3 

o o 

a a 

CO CO 

a) o> 



CO 

>> CO 

a 



6 S 

3 3 



£§S 



en fe 3" 3- -S -S 



o oi o> 



© CO 



CO CO 

co co 



2^ ■ 

*3 § ^ § 

S CO _] fe 

PQ !=> co CJ 



S '5 '? '? 



o o 



CO 



to 

<d 

00 



CO -"H 

— o 

01 > 



«0 OE 

lO tj m 3 i— i 

<M S O § TJ. 

IN ^ N 



o 



00 

goo 

„, OT w 

CO >_ (-, 

3 11 
O Si £> 

6 6 6 

>> CO CO 

C JS -c 

o CJ CJ 
3 

< J J 



| § V 2 "g N 

£ 2 p 55 -P ° 



— — b. CO 
CO 



^<Q£co|dcl 1 E 



CD 



PQ CO co "> 



S C t "5 "5 

35 Tf a oi 

00 oo CN CN 

SD ^ ^ Z <5 

j S S CO CO 

co < ffi £ p 



3 3 
3 3 

o o 

O CJ 



3 3 
O O 



X? 3 

c 5 

3 O 
O CJ 

CJ N 

>> p 



3 J? 

3 3 

O 3 

CJ O 

N O 

P >> 

0) 



3 3 

3 3 

O O 

CJ CJ 



o CJ g 



QC « 



cu D3 '3 <u 
-3 3 •- 

Q S 



co •— i «— i «— . co co 

co 2 2 2 co co 



S> CJ 




O o 


3 
2 


co be 
'3 <u 


3 "is 


O 


J Q 


c 


3 3 


M 


CO CO 


3 


CO CO 


D 



3 
3 
O 

*j> o -*-> 

3 ft. 3 

3 co 3 

O -3 O 

Q) CO <u 

fe '3 *« 



1 
_ *j 

3 - 3 
OS© 

ScoS 



8 
3 

IS 

CJ J3 

£ CQ 
co 



o> 



COS 

— CO 

2 CO 







>> >> 




>. 


3 3 




B 


3 3 




3 


O O 


>> 


Q 


CJ CJ 


—1 

c 

3 

C 


CJ 


O O 




a a 

CO CO 


O 


CO 

.0 


'2 IS 


O 





b£ 


03 


CO CO 


Cv 


PQ 


'3 "3 


5 


eo 


J J 


a 


3 


3 3 


CO 


CO 


CO CO 


w 


M 


CO CO 



a 

3 

c5* 

CO O 

o 2 

.22 3 

3 0) 

J CO 

3 3 

CO CO 

CO CO 



3 >> 

3 -^ 

2 c 

3 

CJ g 

O CJ 

3- CO 

SI 

■| CQ 

J 2 

3 3 
CO CO 

CO CO 



>> >> 

3 3 

3 3 

O O 

CJ CJ 



2>S 



X 



CN 



°ot~c»__coix>co 
hoocoJ^ooco* 

5, 00 00 * 



00 00 £ £ £ 



cJ) co m :a m 

00 O O) b CD <x> 

>-• 00 00 O. 00 CD 

cd >, — 1 — ' <• ^ 00 

3 3 . — .73 



g 00 co 



c a. 10 o. "g 



oo^iJ 3 3_2-5'5'ooo5 r o>incNc£.oo<-H- 1 













O 


5 


c~ 




X 






99 


- 


co t> 


00 


O) 




00 CD 


r ~ H 


^ 


CD 00 CD 


9a 


X 


00 00 


CD CD 


>. 


b 


00 ^ 00 


X 




CD CD 


00 00 


L 


^ JS "- 1 

33 W ^3 


-C 





00 00 


33 33 


03 


CO 

2 


>- u 1- 





b 


73 73 


1- u 


_£ 


_C' 


Q, CO O, 


c 


03 


u. l_ 


a a 


1 


a, 


< s < 

— — ~ 


S3 

s 


s 


a a 
< < 


< < 

CD t- 




09 



NCHINniONHHH 



84 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



& 



a 
o 





o 2 

§1 




CO 
CD 
(-1 






Jh 




CO >> 

3 C 
O O 

S J2 




o 

cc y 

CM CO 

CD u 

r-H CD 




>>< 




« -5 


CO 
CO 

o 
in 

- — i 


o 'S 

<J CO 


N 


•8 B 

>- ca 

►2 -^ 


s 


p'S 


> 
fa 


p"p* 


fa 


J fa 


J _, 


u 


CO O 


CO CO 



T3 

d 

o 



03 



LO '- CO 

U5 3 lO 

oo . oo 

N Ph N 

O _r O 

P CO P 



■^ -° rH -° 



o 
b£ 


CD 

CD 


E 

ca 

X 


in 


cu 


X 


O 


N 


s 


z 


13 


O 


C 
CO 


3 


S 


CO 


< 


CO 


P 



6^6 



PS 
J fa 
co o 



X 00 
O CO 

co P 



o «? "H 

00 ^ o 

N N as ^ 

> P CQ CO 



T) > 



3 



CO CC 



oo -a 

N C 



CJ JS ^ 

5> ■* r 1 
2 ca fa 

POO 



co a3 >» 



Q co 



>>>>>> o 



-S -^ 

S. d 

3 3 

o 5 

oo 

2 ™ 

A CD 

S © 

CO _. 

CO 2 



d 

O c 

o g 

|o 

IS « 

O -2 

V 

.2 M 

3 d 

J < 

d to 

CO O 

CO _) 



d 

3 

o 

>,o 

"S ° 

5 a 

3 co 

fi 

6 CO 

*- "d 

CD 3, 

c c 

© s 

m CO 

S CO 



E 
3 

d 2 

© CO 
O X 

St> CO 

CQ 



cd 



d 
>> o 
E^ 

3 CO 
° 3. 

o ^ 

O U 

be CO 

.2 PQ 

Q CO 

C C 
CO CO 

CO CO 



d 


s d 


3 


3 3 


>> o 


o o 




>>o o 


"£ CO CO 

d (_ J* 


r^ « 


3 CO CO 


O X 


O J3 J 


«? co 


^ * « 


£ PQ 


2 PQ CQ 


-2 CO 


3 co co 


C E 


■u -u -u 


S c c 


.— CO 
S CO 


01 CO CO 

> CO CO 



E 
3 
O 

O 

>> S 

C co 

Si 

« CO 
CO ■■-! 

d _3 
d e 

0) CO 

> CO 



c d 

3 3 

o o 

o o 



c c 

3 3 

O O 

O O 

CO CO 



SS 



c c 

01 CD 
> > 



E 
3 

O 

o 

CO r 

^ O 

CD 

bC.2 

d 3 

< J 



E C 

3 3 

O O 

O O 

O O 

a a 

CO CO 

.3 3 

O O 



o 



*-M 1-4 »-4 -j> -*- 

co co co UJ E 



d d 

3 3 



3 3 

d d 

ca co 

co co 



CO o o o 

_, CO CO CO 
T3 >-. )-i b 



S > 



d d 

CD CD 
> > 



o 


O O O 


o o 


rH 


^H 


1-1 <M 


o o 






H O IO 11) 




F— 1 


1-1 oo 






r-H 1-4 


o 


O) a o 


o o 


o 


O 


>, O 


CD CD 




CM Ol CM 

o o o 


>> CD O O 


CO 


>. 


>> o 


CD 
O 


o ^ 


CD CD 


OJ 


H H CJ> 


ai oi 


C3S 


05 


I- 05 






>- f— i cd a> 


o 


1-4 


>-. CD 




l -1 


J3 J3 ^ 








CO ^H 

CD 3 

cZ 5 

lO ^ 


X! J5 


o 

CD 


CD CD CD 


Februa 
March 
April 1 
tober 1' 


CD 


CO 

3 

1-4 

X) 
CD 
fa 


CO ^H 

2x; 
-© £ 


<D 


2 2 


XI X 


u 

J- 


y y r3 

— — u 
ca ca q. 




-E 
y 


a, 


y y 

1-4 l_ 

co ca 


CO CO CO 


c 


ca 


b^ 


y y 

l-H 1- 

co CO 


ca 


s s < 


< < 


ca 


< 


SS 


ca 


s s s 


< 


§ 


J2 di 

§ < 


s s 


cj> co ^h 


cm ■<*< 


t—i 


CO O 


oo oo no 


h m n " 


o 


CN 


CD O 


~T 


!-H CM ^H 


CN CM 


1—1 


i— ( 


CM CT5 


<-i CM 


H H (N 


r-H CM -H O 


CN 


1— 1 


CN i-i 


i— 1 


T}1 Tt 


r-H CM 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 



85 



3 



O CJi 
B ^ 

n v. 



4J 3 

CD O 
bCCJ 

s 

o ^ 



Q o 



W CO 

z I! 

- -a 

-O 



co N N 
W CO O > > 



cj a 

D, <-> CIi-j^^— '—'—' — ^~ 
coEcoBBSBBEEBE 
•S3-3333333333 
jSo^OOOOOOOOO _. 

Ocj°OCJ>CJOCJCJCJCJCJ o 



3 is 3 

j 3 j 

c c c 

B3 CD co m a/ vj 

CO > CO > > > 



CQCQCQ3303CQCQCd(Q 

ccccccccc 

>>>>>> 



t» o> o 



^HN- 




1 — 1 


pq 






CN CO T 


OlO) O) ° 




CN 


05 






CN CJ1 CD 


~* , 1 , 1 Cn 




~ 








05 •-< _• 


CJS 

73 -B -C — 


CM 




-C 






^ -E -C 


u y . 


- 


jC 









5 u u 


^ cO CO CO 


O 


Ih 






1- *- >- 




In 


eg 






rv CO CO 


£ s s s 


c 


CO 


§ 


CN 


CN 

CJ 


< s s 


O CO CM 00 


9 


t- 


03 


- 


H CC rt 


h IN h N 


•-a 


CO 


— ' 


fH 


.H 


CN H CN 



o 

4) 

E 
o 

CO 

j>> 

01 

=1 



J3 
bfi 



3 CO 

Jo "3 
o Q 



ffi cO 

CD 00 CO CO 

« 2 £ OQ 



.2 s 

o> l_ 

Q O 



n 3 ° 

> 3 O 

M CO O 

2 CO N 



>> >> 



3 3 

3 3 

O O 

O CJ 

CO CO 



3 3 3 
^ £ S 

OOO 

3 3 3 

.* j* .* 

BBS 



CQ CQ 



DDDoitnDD 



E E E E E E E 

OOOOOOO 
E B E E E E E 
.* _* J* J* ^ ^! -X 

E E E E E E E 

D D D D D D D 



2 .S 



o 



u -a 

£5 

"3 co 
'3 bO 

.2 So 

CO « 

bC B 

bo o 

H> 
m 



CD — 

CO 5 

o 4-. 

O CO 

I B 

-° CO 

-u . . 

CO — 

2 Z 



1-1 .2 

B "5 

* 2 

CO e 

s > 



5 CD 

«-< Oh 
CD 

•^ .co 
2 "5 

CO O 

O k 

•S, B 

w s 

CQ — 

.9 z 
In 

o > 

w b 

co ^ 
C8 '$■ 

V, >> 
CP 

^2 






I? 

B be 

3 CO 

co & 

co ^ 



bc~ 



c > 



- 
o cj CO 



86 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



W3 

be 
bo 

01 




o &> 
CO °° 


h. 






o 






T3 






C 




o 5? 


o 




°o SK 


o 




oo oo 

.-H "I 


T3 






C 






o 












k 






e 




© cx> 


ft, 




oo oo 


■T3 




r— 1 1 ~ H 


0) 






*o 






a 






e 






a, 




© * 

CO CO 

oo oo 


^ 




i-H iH 


-c 






«e 






u 






o 






0) 




© 05 


c 




oo °o 


■ki 




i—i ■— ' 


"fc. 






-^ 








-a 




■u 


_o 




0) 


cu 


© s 

oo oo 


£** 






3 -C 






C bo 




© o* 


£ *» 




03 2? 


o o 

"S co 




oo oo 


K b 






s| 






•si 




o 2 






oo oo 


.o 




1— 1 ■"■ 1 


<*i. 


















e 






U 






<*-^ 




© °S 


o 




o £ 


fn 




oo oo 


<a 




I— 1 f ' 


CO 






co 






,o 












•^ 






o 




* — 

I- o 


£ 




O O 

*3 oo 


e 




» ^ 


£ 






£ 






a 




CO 








e 




s 








bo 




o 




•-*a 




o 




c 




o 




c 




.< 


CO 


U 


CO 

o 






CO 


o 


< 


c 


JD 


'-4J 


3 


CO 

u 


CO 




H 




J 



t * n o 



© lH 
CO CO 



© H 

CN iO 



© 
US 



I I 



bo 

c 
IS 

CO 

co ca 
£| 
-2 8 « 

_, co G 

o l -' o 
bO co ^3 
cu •--> a 

i* CO CO 

opau 



O CO js 
GO >,c3 



t* ^ C CO 

S £ o co 



o 

D. co 

SI 

^3 cfl 



bC co 
£ <*> 

o <= 



CO o 

« .s 



s.s 



-5 t3 T3 

S 1 " 2 I 
5 cb c a 



CO co « o ^ CO 
CO CO > J CO 




THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 



87 



o <£ 



O 05 

£ cr> 
(35 o> 






o ^ 
<35 <y> 



© 5 






o °^ 

05 05 



© "^ 



CM ^h © ^h 

4 N 4 1 IN 
TT i-H (M tJ- 



© © 



I I 



I I 



I I 



© © 

CSI l-H 



O —i 

A I 4 



© rH 

I ch ch 



not; 

© <n © 



1-1 Tj- 

- I © 



o 
00 I 



© © 



o 



o 
I eh I 



o o 

rH CN 



X CO U0 •* CN <M 00 

c<> ~ t~- <x> x~- ch <n r^- 



bc 

c 
j3 

en 

« eo 

> s 
■g| 

CO — 

c w 
o U 
be ca 

>- — 
O QQ 



<— o 



U c 



OT « 

en >>CJ 



*3 C C 

c « «; 

O X) CQ 



en >~ 

SI 

en ^ 

3 b c 

J 2 3 < 

C C C en 

CO eg 0) O 

X CXI > J 



*> C 

be ca 

C (/) 

. M O 
CU CLi .S 
-S !3 "P 



as m 



c is 

be 3 
X) t^ 



o 



88 



NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



o 

e 

o 
u 

a 



a 



3 

< 

JO 
CO 



"2 k c 



a .g 

.2 ft 

3 ft 

O CO 



« 35 3 

£ ft ft 









00 

_g 

o 
o 

-c 

7) 



CO CO Tf 00 CO © 






n m Tf h co 



Nffl M N H 



HNinN^mcNcoooot^cnoo 



CMLOCOC^CMCMCOCOCMi-l^HCO 



OnoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
*T'_<OCMCO'^ , mcDt-00050'-iCNCO-<J'iniX)I> 
0000000000000000000505050505050505 



CQ 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR. 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 89 



APPENDIX III 

Unpublished Material on the 
California Condor 



Borneman, J. C. Field notes 1965-1976. Author's files, National Audubon 
Society, Ventura, California. 

Carrier, W. D. Field notes 1971-1973. Copies included in condor research 
files, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 

Chambers, W. L. Correspondence, list of condor eggs in collections. Bancroft 
Library, Berkeley, California. 

Easton, R. E. Miscellaneous notes and letters pertaining to condors in Santa 
Barbara County. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. 

Hill, Harold M. Condor trip notes, Los Padres National Forest 1945-1946. 
Copies in Fish and Wildlife Service condor research files, Ojai, California. 

Hill, Herbert. Condor nesting reports 1950-1952, 1955. Los Padres National 
Forest, Goleta, California. 

Koford, C. B. Original field notes on condor research 1939-1941, 1946-1950. 
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley, California. 

McMillan, E. Original field notes on condor research 1963-1964. Museum of 
Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley, California. 

Mercado, A. Original field notes on condor study, Los Padres National For- 
est, July- August 1975. Copies included in condor research files, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Ojai, California. 

Robinson, C. S. Reports and notes 1936-1940. U.S. Forest Service, Los 
Padres National Forest, Goleta, California. 

Scott, C. D. Manuscript (1935, 1945) "Looking for Condors." Huntington Li- 
brary, San Marino, California. 

Sibley, F. C. Original field notes and administrative reports 1966-1969. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 

Sprunt, A. Report on trip to Sespe Condor Sanctuary, March-April 1961. 
National Audubon Society, New York. 

Todd, F. S. Manuscript (1971) "Notes on the behavior of Topatopa," a cap- 
tive condor. Author's files, Sea World, San Diego, California. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Public hearing record on Sespe Condor 
Sanctuary withdrawal, 21 August 1950. 3 volumes, 443 pp. Bureau of 
Land Management, Sacramento, California. 

U.S. Forest Service. Condor patrolman reports, Los Padres National Forest, 
Goleta, California. R. Davis (March 1951); B. F. Dahlen (March-May 
1952); W. Kastorff (July-Aug. 1952); W. M. Harper (March 1956-June 
1959); J. W. Gaines (July 1959-March 1964); Y. D. Miller (April 1964-April 
1966); and D. L. Connell (June 1966-June 1967). 

Van Vuren, D. Manuscript "Deer hunters and the California condor: activity 
patterns and possible conflicts at Mount Pinos and Pine Mountain, Ven- 
tura County, California" (1975). Copy plus original field notes from study 



90 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



included in condor research files, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ojai, Cali- 
fornia. 

Wilbur, S. R. Original field notes and administrative reports 1969-1976. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 

Work, T. Condor trip reports, Los Padres National Forest, 1945-1946. 
Copies with Fish and Wildlife Service condor research files, Ojai, Cali- 
fornia. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 91 



APPENDIX IV 

Chronology of Significant Events in 
California Condor History 

1602— First written record of the California condor, Monterey, California (de 

la Ascension 1928). 
1792— First condor known collected, by Archibald Menzies, at Monterey, 

California; specimen still in British Museum. 

1885— Possibly a State of California law passed about this time, indirectly 
prohibiting or limiting the killing of condors or taking of their eggs 
(Cooper 1890); no particulars found. 

1905— Section 637a, California Fish and Game laws (approved 19 March) 
prohibited taking of nongame birds, their nests, or eggs without a 
permit (condor included, but not specifically named). Fish and Game 
Commission made formal statement concerning prohibition on 
condor collecting (Anonymous 1905). 

1906— W. L. Chambers compiled a list of condor eggs in collections, copy on 
file at Bancroft Library, Berkeley, California. 

1908— Condor shot in Los Angeles County, shooter fined $50 (Grinnell 
1909), apparently the only instance of condor killing or egg taking 
leading to prosecution and conviction. 

1917— Illegally captured condor confiscated in Monterey County, but appar- 
ently no prosecution (Anonymous 1917). 

1937— Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary, including approximately 485 ha (1,200 
acres), established by U.S. Forest Service under Regulation T-9. 

1939— Carl B. Koford began intensive studies of California condor, spon- 
sored by research fellowship from National Audubon Society. 

1901— State of California Legislature enacted "protective laws," protecting 
all birds of prey except peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Cooper's 
hawk (Accipiter cooperi), and sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter 
striatus). 

1940— Cyril S. Robinson, U.S. Forest Service, prepared the first research re- 
port on the condor, the result of observations made in 1936-1940 
(Robinson 1940). 

1941— Harry Harris published a comprehensive historical account of the 
condor (Harris 1941). 

1942— Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the 
Western Hemisphere (the "Natural Resources Treaty") recognized 
the condor as being in serious trouble; no legal status conferred by 
the treaty. 

1947— Sespe Condor Sanctuary, approximately 14,000 ha (35,000 acres), es- 
tablished by U.S. Forest Service under Regulation T-9. 

1948— California Condor Advisory Committee established to advise Los 
Padres National Forest on condor management. 



92 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

1949— International Technical Conference on the Protection of Nature, Lake 
Success, New York: 13 world birds, including the condor, recognized 
as needing emergency help. 

1951— Sespe Condor Sanctuary enlarged to 21,450 ha (53,000 acres) by 
Forest Service; Public Land Order 695 withdrew a portion of the area 
from appropriation under public land laws, and prohibited surface 
entry in areas most critical to the condors. 

1951— First patrolman (part-time) assigned to Sespe Condor Sanctuary; 
Forest Service and National Audubon Society shared salary costs. 

1952— Sespe Wildlife Sanctuary Management Plan approved. 

1953— Publication of Carl B. Koford's research as National Audubon So- 
ciety Research Report 4. 

1953— First legal protection specifically directed to the condor. Section 
1179.5, California Fish and Game Code: "It is unlawful to take any 
condor at any time or in any manner. No provision of this code or any 
other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of a permit to 
take any condor and no such permit heretofore issued shall have any 
force or effect for any purpose on and after January 15, 1954." 

1956— First full-time patrolman (William M. Harper) assigned to Sespe 
Condor Sanctuary by U.S. Forest Service. 

1959— California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511, California condor 
among those species listed as "fully protected," those that cannot be 
taken at any time; no authority for issuing any type of permit. Fine of 
$500 or 6-month jail sentence authorized. 

1965— Publication of National Audubon Society Research Report 6, condor 
status report based on 1963-1964 field work of Ian I. McMillan and 
Eben McMillan (Miller et al. 1965). 

1965— Condor Advisory Committee formalized; task enlarged to one of ad- 
vising Regional Forester on all condor matters. 

1965— Assignment by National Audubon Society of Condor Naturalist (ori- 
ginally "condor warden") John C. Borneman to full-time educational 
and field study program. 

1965— Endangered Wildlife Research Program initiated at Patuxent Wild- 
life Research Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Fred C. Sibley 
assigned to full-time research on the condor, succeeded in 1969 by 
Sanford R. Wilbur. 

1965— California Senate Bill 261 signed into law, increased penalty for tak- 
ing a condor to $1,000 and 1 year in jail. 

1965— First Cooperative Survey of the California condor, the first attempt 
at simultaneous observation of condor numbers and distribution. 

1966— Formation of Condor Survey Committee to act as technical advisors 
in condor research and management; name subsequently changed to 
Condor Technical Committee, then to Condor Recovery Team. 

1966— Passage of Endangered Species Preservation Act (80 Stat. 926), di- 
recting Secretary of the Interior to develop a register of endangered 
species, and authorizing expenditure of Land and Water Conserva- 
tion Fund monies (78 Stat. 897) for endangered species habitat ac- 
quisition. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 93 

1967— First official list of United States endangered species published by 
Secretary of the Interior, condor included. 

1968— U.S. Forest Service assigned wildlife biologist W. Dean Carrier to 
condor investigations, position filled until November 1973. 

1969— Passage of Endangered Species Conservation Act (Public Law 91- 
135) prohibited interstate shipment of wildlife taken contrary to 
State law. 

1970— State of California Endangered Species Act passed, condor subse- 
quently (1971) officially listed as "endangered" under State law. 

1970— Secretary of Interior took stand against Sespe Water Project because 
of expected detrimental effects on condor. 

1970— California Department of Fish and Game prepared "Operational man- 
agement plan for the California condor" (Mallette 1970), guidelines 
for preservation, management, and further research. 

1970— Secretary of the Interior placed moratorium on oil and gas leasing in 
the Sespe Condor Sanctuary. 

1970— U.S. Bureau of Land Management placed moratorium on all mineral 
leasing activities within area delineated as especially important to 
condor survival. 

1971— Forest Service prepared "Habitat management plan for the Cali- 
fornia condor" (Carrier 1971), specific guidelines for condor preserva- 
tion on national forest lands. 

1971— California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511, amended (Stats. 1970, 
Ch. 1036) to allow issuance of permits for collecting fully protected 
species, including condor, when necessary for scientific research. 

1971— Acquisition by Nature Conservancy and Forest Service of 65-ha (162- 
acre) Huff's Hole property, San Luis Obispo County, important for 
protection of a condor nesting area. 

1972— Migratory bird treaty with Mexico (1937 Convention) amended; Cali- 
fornia condor among species added to protected bird list; first specific 
Federal protection of the condor. 

1972— Firearms closure for Sespe Condor Sanctuary and adjacent condor 

habitat established by Forest Supervisor, Los Padres National 

Forest. 
1973— California Assembly Bill 15 passed, prohibiting all aircraft flight 

within 915 m (3,000 feet) of terrain over the Sespe Condor Sanctuary 

(Fish and Game Code 10501.5). 

1973— Passage of Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205) made 
taking of any endangered species a violation of Federal law, and 
strengthened authority and responsibility of all Federal agencies in 
protecting endangered species and preserving critical habitat. 

1973— Acquisition of an important private inholding in the Sespe Condor 

Sanctuary, the 130-ha (320-acre) Green Cabins parcels, by National 

Audubon Society. 
1975— Acquisition of the 23-ha (58-acre) Coldwater Canyon tract within the 

Sespe Condor Sanctuary, by California Department of Fish and 

Game. 



94 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



1975— Acquisition of 728-ha (1,800-acre) Hopper Mountain National Wild- 
life Refuge by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as protective buffer for 
the Sespe Condor Sanctuary and as condor feeding habitat. 

1975— Approval of California Condor Recovery Plan, and formal recognition 
of Condor Recovery Team. 






THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 95 



APPENDIX V 

An Annotated List of California Condor Literature 

Abbott, J. A. 1939. Eggs: $9,000.00 a dozen. Los Angeles Times Magazine, 
14May:14. 
A 1922 egg list values condor egg at $750.00. 

Advisory Committee on Predator Control. 1972. Predator control — 1971. 

Report to the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of 

the Interior. 207 pp. 
Page 86, brief review of condor — predator control relationships; few cases of 
condor deaths, but "the strong possibility of secondary poisoning." 

Ainsworth, E. 1937. Condors come back; expert tells habits. Los Angeles 
Times, 28 March. 
Condors reputedly increasing at rapid rate, no details. 

Ainsworth, E., 1954. Condor crusade. Field and Stream 59(2):46-49. 

Alleges only about 38 condors in existence, not more than 8 or 10 nesting pairs. 

Allen, A. S. 1916. [Cooper Ornithological Society meeting notes.] Condor 
18(4):175. 
Dr. Evermann saw "half a dozen" condors in Ventura County. 

Allen, T. B. 1974. Vanishing wildlife of North America. National Geographic 
Society, Wash., D.C. 207 pp. 
Pages 157-164, summary of recent research and management. 

American Ornithologist's Union. 1940. Report of the Committee on Bird 
Protection, 1939. Auk 57(2):279-291. 
Reports 3-year Audubon fellowship study initiated; Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary 
established, closed to public ingress. 

American Ornithologist's Union. 1941. Report of the Committee on Bird 
Protection, 1940. Auk 58(2):292-298. 
Estimated 50 condors in existence; Committee proposed (1) setting aside entire 
Los Padres National Forest for condor protection, (2) prohibiting all hunting, 
except for personnel killing deer for condor food, and (3) restoring the mountain 
lion population on the Forest so that lion kills would be available to condors. 

American Ornithologist's Union. 1942. Report of the Committee on Bird 
Protection, 1941. Auk 59(2):286-299. 
Condor population thought to have increased by 10% in past 2 years (C. B. 
Koford, personal communication). 

American Ornithologist's Union. 1943. Report of the Committee on Bird 
Protection, 1942. Auk60(l):152-162. 
War Department closed entire Los Padres Forest to public entry; condors be- 
lieved to be increasing and expanding their range; D. D. McLean reputedly saw 
80 condors early in 1942. 

American Ornithologist's Union. 1944. Report of the Committee on Bird 
Protection, 1943. Auk 61(4):622-635. 
Condors reputedly increased during past year. 



96 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



American Ornithologist's Union. 1965. Report of the Committee on Bird 
Protection, 1964. Auk 82(3):490. 
Proposed Sierra Madre Ridge Road and Sespe Creek water project viewed as 
threats to condors. 

American Ornithologist's Union. 1971. Report of the Committee on Conser- 
vation, 1970-71. Auk 88(4):902-910. 
Notes that data on condor status are confusing, population estimates varying 
from about 30 to more than 60. 

Anderson, N. T. 1935. Condors in northern Los Angeles County, California. 
Condor 37(3):170. 

Antelope Valley, 9 August 1934, seven condors feeding on sheep carcass; 
December 1934-January 1935, four records (one to three condors). 

Anonymous. 1854. [Accession notes, 1855.] Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 1:70-71. 
Condor specimen acquired from W. B. Farwell, no details; condor feathers 
received from A. C. Taylor, collected "in the vicinity of the Red Woods of Contra 
Costa." 

Anonymous. 1874. [Minutes of 3 March 1873 meeting.] Proc. Calif. Acad. 
Sci. 5:36-37. 
"Mr. Lorquin" described immature condor captured by him, date and place not 
given. 

Anonymous. 1893. Additions to the Museum for the Year 1892. Proc. Calif. 
Acad. Sci., Ser. 2, 3:379-382. 
Academy received a mounted condor specimen from G. E. Colwell of San Fran- 
cisco. 

Anonymous. 1894a. Three thousand bird skins. Nidiologist 2(4):55. 

Walter E. Bryant collection, including five condor skins, given to California 
Academy of Sciences. 

Anonymous. 1894b. Notes and news. Nidiologist 2(4):51. 

G. F. Breninger reports two condor sightings (one bird each) near Pacheco Pass, 
Merced County (no date), and three condors in Santa Cruz County "last sum- 
mer." 

Anonymous. 1896. How the condor is captured. Littell's Living Age 
209(2709):640. 
Dramatic account of a condor being lassoed and captured, no date or location 
given. 

Anonymous. 1898. Notes on the taking of an egg of the California condor. 
Museum 4(7):103. 
Condor egg collected in Santa Barbara County, 29 April 1897. 

Anonymous. 1899. [Correspondence from A. F. Redington.] Bull. Cooper Or- 
nithol. Clubl(l):19. 
One condor seen at San Marcos Pass, Santa Barbara County; "We can almost 
guarantee at least the sight of this species in a day's trip down the Santa Ynez 
range." 

Anonymous. 1900a. Two more eggs of California condor. Condor 2(3):60. 

H. R. Taylor's collectors secured condor eggs on 19 March 1900 (Monterey Cty.) 
and 26 March 1900 (San Luis Obispo Cty.); sold to Miss Jean Bell of Penn- 
sylvania. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 97 



Anonymous. 1900b. Eggs of the California condor. Osprey 4(9): 142. 

H. M. Beesley trying to purchase condor egg for Tring (England) Museum; last 
recorded sale reportedly in 1887. "There are said to be several oologists who are 
ready to pay $ 1 ,000 to $ 1 , 200 for an egg. ' ' 

Anonymous. 1901. [Report of condor death.] Condor 3(3):79. 

F. H. Holmes pet condor "Ben Butler" died of undetermined causes after several 
years captivity. 

Anonymous. 1904. Notes and News. Condor 6(3):83. 

Trip into western Los Angeles and Ventura counties by Messrs. Lelande and 
Howard, on which 11 condors were seen simultaneously "and several nesting 
aeries were located." 

Anonymous. 1905. Annual report of the National Association of Audubon 
Societies for 1905. Bird-lore 7(6):295-350. 

Citing California newspaper: "The (California) Fish and Game Commission has 
announced that no permits will be issued for collecting the California Condor or 
its eggs for any purpose." 

Anonymous. 1906. The California vulture. Birds Nat. 4(5): 188. 
General compilation. 

Anonymous. 1907. An almost extinct bird. N.Y. Zool. Soc. Bull. 24:318-320. 
W. L. Finley's condor "General" acquired by New York Zoo. 

Anonymous. 1916. List of accessions to the Museum and Library, 1916. 
Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci., Ser. 4, 6(8-9):246-250. 
Presentation to the Academy of two condor specimens collected by E. B. Towns, 
January 1894, in San Diego County. 

Anonymous. 1917. California condor on exhibition in Golden Gate Park, San 
Francisco, Calif. Fish Game 3(4): 176. 
Condor lassoed in Monterey County, confiscated and placed on exhibition by Fish 
and Game Commission. 

Anonymous. 1922. Proceedings of the annual meeting, Audubon Associa- 
tion of the Pacific. Gull 4(2): 1-2. 
C. Littlejohn notes that in San Mateo County and vicinity "Condors were quite 
common in the early days. Flocks of buzzards would include one condor in twenty 
birds." 

Anonymous. 1926. Bird that lays $1,500 eggs. Lit. Dig. 90(6):48, 52. 

Condor "lays an egg valued by museums and collectors at $1,500 to $2,000"; only 
50 condors remaining, California Fish and Game Commission records. 

Anonymous. 1927. [Editorial on "Bird that lays $1,500 eggs." Anon. 1926.] 
Condor 29(3): 129. 
Notes numerous misstatements, and criticizes drawing attention to the value of 
eggs. 

Anonymous. 1928. Pet condor as cute as a canary. Lit. Dig. 97(5):45-46, 48, 
50. 
Good general account of W. L. Finley's condor "General." 

Anonymous. 1929. Youth fights condor to win thousand dollar egg. Pop. 
Mech. 52(5):708. 
Condor egg allegedly collected in Baja California. See Lume 1938. 



98 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Anonymous. 1930. Science news: items. Science 71(Suppl. 1840):14. 
Condor wing bone found in Conkling Cave, New Mexico. 

Anonymous. 1937a. The condor, largest flying bird, faces extinction. Calif. 
Conserv. 2(9):5. 
Fantastic information: Condor "mates for life and if anything happens to either 
one, the survivor never takes another mate . . . lays an average of one egg every 
four years . . . The young remain in the nest for more than a year before they can 
fly. During that time the eagle is the condor's one and only enemy." 

Anonymous. 1937b. Condor upturn. Time 29(15):51. 

Sidney Peyton saw 1 1 condors in Sespe area of Los Padres Forest; his opinion is 
that condors are increasing. 

Anonymous. 1951a. The condors' last stand. Life 30(15):75-77. 

Picture story of condor in Los Padres Forest; one photo shows seven condors at 
roost. 

Anonymous. 1951b. Frank Arundell, county naturalist, admits with candor 
he knows condor. Ventura County News, 18 Janaury:6. 
Early-day egg and skin collecting activities reported. 

Anonymous. 1953. To catch a condor. Newsweek 41(19):92. 

Account of attempts by San Diego Zoo to capture condors for captive propaga- 
tion. 

Anonymous. 1960. [Field observation.] Gull 42(8):56. 

One adult condor seen near Lebec, Kern County, 3 May 1960. 

Anonymous. 1964a. Last of the shy condors. Life 57(22):75-76. 
Picture story. 

Anonymous. 1964b. Condor in danger. Defenders Wildl. News Bull. 39(3):9. 
"A group of volunteers are forming to patrol their (the condors') roosting, nesting 
and feeding areas"; opposition to Sierra Madre Ridge Road proposal. 

Anonymous. 1965a. A Topatopa Dam could destroy the condor. Audubon 
Leader's Conserv. Guide 6(l):l-2. 
Review of the proposed Sespe Water Project. 

Anonymous. 1965b. Condor census — "38 probables." Outdoor Calif. 
26(11):16. 
Results of First Cooperative Condor Survey. 

Anonymous. 1965c. Condor population declines from 60 to 40; gunners 
blamed. Defenders Wildl. 40(l):61-62. 
Review of Miller et al. 1965a. 

Anonymous. 1965d. Condor killed. Audubon Leader's Conserv. Guide 
6(14):3. 
Photo of powerline mortality. 

Anonymous. 1966. Wilderness and the condor. Natl. Parks Mag. 40(220):19- 
20. 
San Rafael Wilderness and the condor. 

Anonymous. 1967. Condors may disappear. My Weekly Reader 36(24):1, 4. 
Brief children's article. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 99 



Anonymous. 1968. The Audubon view — condors, whooping cranes and 
Audubon policy. Audubon Mag. 70(6):4. 
Captive propagation viewed as a research technique and as a "last ditch" effort 
to preserve a population. 

Anonymous. 1973. To save a bird. Aerosp. Saf . 29(9): 1 1 . 
Plea for pilots to avoid condor nesting areas. 

Anonymous. 1974. Condor Fund drive; seeing the California condor. West. 
Tanager41(3):l-2. 

Where to see condors. 

Anonymous. 1976. Second stage of condor breeding program nears comple- 
tion. Endangered Species Tech. Bull. 1(5):2, 4. 
History of Andean condor propagation at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 
Birds captured in 1966-67 all paired, three of four pairs have produced young. 
Eventually captive-reared condors are to be released to the wild. 

Anthony, A. W. 1893. Birds of San Pedro Martir, Lower California. Zoe 
4(3):228-247. 
Condors seen daily in May 1893, two dead ones found; saw condor quills used for 
carrying gold dust. 

Anthony, A. W. 1895. Birds of San Fernando, Lower California. Auk 
12(2):134-143. 
One condor found dead; condors unusual in that area. 

Arnold, R. 1909. Condors in a flock. Condor 11(3):101. 

Eighteen condors seen near McKittrick, Kern County, 1 October 1908; only two 
or three condors seen by him in that area in 2 years. 

Ashworth, C. W. 1929. California condor. Oologist 46(5):65-66. 
Four condors seen 6 miles from Ventura, California, 24 March 1929. 

Atkinson, B. 1966. Those "Forty dirty birds." Audubon Mag. 68(4):231-237. 
Popular account of life history and status. 

Atkinson, B. 1972. "40 dirty birds" hold their own but are never safe. Smith- 
sonian 2(12):66-73. 
Popular account, well done. 

Audubon, J. J. 1839. Ornithological biography. Vol. 5. Adam and Charles 
Black, Edinburgh. 664 pp. 
Pages 240-245, life history notes from various sources. 

Audubon, J. W. 1906. Audubon's western journal, 1849-1850. Arthur H. 
Clark, Cleveland. 249 pp. 

Records of condors in San Diego County (November 1849) and San Joaquin 
Valley, California (November or December 1849, "many"; March-April 1850, sev- 
eral records; thought he saw nests, but record not certain). 

Austin, M. 1974. The land of little rain. Reprint of 1903 edition. University 
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 171 pp. 
Undated records of condors at Tejon Ranch and Red Rock Canyon, Kern County. 

Baird, S. F., T. M. Brewer, and R. Ridgway. 1874. A history of North Ameri- 
can birds. Vol. 3, land birds. Little, Brown and Co., Boston. 560 pp. 
Pages 338-343, good compilation from various sources. 



100 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Baker. J. H. 1946. Condor research to be resumed. Audubon Mag. 48(1):53- 
54. 
Notes return of C. B. Koford to finish condor studies; lauds national forest fire 
closure' because il reduces public use of condor areas. 

Baker, J. H. 1950a. Better protection for the California condor. Audubon 
Mag. 52(6):348-354. 
Recommendation that Department of Interior close Sespe area to mining and 
mineral leasing. 

Baker, J. H. 1950b. Oil and condors don't mix. Audubon Mag. 52(2):120. 

Proposes Sespe mining closure. 

Baker, J. H. 1951. Condor prospects improve. Audubon Mag. 53(2):122-123. 
Passage of Public Land Order 695, and establishment of Sespe Condor Sanc- 
tuary; full text of land order. 

Baker. J. H. 1953. Threat to the condors. Audubon Mag. 55(2):68. 
Pi oi esi s issuance of permit to San Diego Zoo to trap condors. 

Bancroft. 11. H. 1882. The native races. Vol. 3, myths and legends. A. L. 
Bancroft and Co., San Francisco. 796 pp. 
Page I'M. general comments on American Indian religion and condor; page 168, 
descript ion oi t he 'panes" festival, involving sacrificing a condor. 

Barnes, R. M. 1912. California condor's egg. Oologist 29(5):269. 
Condor egg from San I )iego County: details in Gedney 1900. 

Barnes, R. M. 1913. Condor of United States. Oologist 30(1):13-14. 

Quotes fanciful magazine information from Youth's Companion, decries printing 
of such misinformation in "any reputable publication." 

Barnes, R. M. 1931. The California condor. Oologist 48(12):175. 

One condor reported from Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, 11 November 1931. 

Beebe, C. W. 1906. The California condor. Bull. Zool. Soc. N.Y. 20:258-259. 
Description of live condor in New York Zoo. 

Beebe. C. W. 1909. New World vultures. Part II. N.Y. Zool. Soc. Bull. 
32:465-470. 
Mainly a description of W. L. Finley's condor "General." Beebe adds, "I have 
carefully tested the (California condor's) power of scent . . . and if present at all it 
is very slight indeed.'' 

Beebe, C. W., and L. S. Crandall. 1912. The birds of prey and their aviary. 
Part II. N.Y. Zool. Soc. Bull. 16(52):886-889. 
Notes that New York Zoo has three California condors. 

Behle, W. H. 1944. Check-list of the birds of Utah. Condor 46(2):67-87. 
Condor on State list on basis of one record (Henshaw 1875). 

Belding L. 1879. A partial list of the birds of central California. Proc. U.S. 
Natl. Mus. 1:388-449. 
Sacramento Valley, California: condor "very rare," seen occasionally in winter. 

Belding, L. 1890. Land birds of the Pacific district. Occas. Pap., Calif. Acad. 
Sci. 2:1-274. 
Summarizes comments of various observers. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 101 

Bendire, C. 1892. Life histories of North American birds. Smithson. Inst. 
Spec. Bull. 1.446 pp. 

Pages 157-161, general comments on life history and status; attributes a major 
decline to poisoning, but no details ;,iven; condors noted as "moderately abun- 
dant" in "Tulare" (San Joaquin) Valley, 1866-1868. 

Bent, A. C. 1937. Life histories of North American birds of prey. Part I. Bull. 
U.S. Natl. Mus. 167. 409 pp. 
Pages 1-13, general compilation of available data. 

Bidwell, J. 1964. A journey to California, 1841. The journal of John Bidwell. 
Friends of the Bancroft Library, Berkeley. 55 pp. 
General comment (no locations given) that both "buzzards" (turkey vultures) and 
"vultures" (condors) are numerous in California. 

Bidwell, J. 1966. Life in California before the Gold Discovery. Lewis 
Osborne, Palo Alto. 76 pp. 
1840's — "New Mexican" miners in Los Angeles County "invariably carried their 
gold ... in a large quill — that of a vulture (condor) or turkey buzzard." 

Bishop, R. C. 1971. Conservation of the California condor in relation to the 
proposed phosphate mining and processing operation in Los Padres Na- 
tional Forest. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn., Contrib. to Proj. 1244. 25 pp. 
Economic analysis, concludes that "the public could legitimately question the 
wisdom of using public land for (a phosphate mine). . . risking an endangered 
species of international significance in the process ..." 

Blake, C. H. 1955. The wing of Teratornis merriami. Int. Ornithol. Congr. 
11:261-263. 
Compares flight characteristics of condor with suspected features of Teratornis. 

Blake, W. C. 1895. Big price for a bird skin. Nidiologist 2(7):96, 2(8):122. 
Condor skin sold for 40 pounds. 

Bleitz, D. 1946. Climbing for condors. Pac. Pathways 1(10):37-41. 

Visits to a condor nest in Ventura County mountains; nestling found dead, ar- 
senic found during analysis; aulhor surmises chick was fed poisoned meat by par- 
ents (but see Koford 1953:130 for another explanation). 

Bock, W. 1960. Secondary articulation of the avian mandible. Auk 77(1):19- 

55. 
Includes discussion of Cathartidae, with diagram of condor skull. 

Bolander, G. 1934. A rhapsody of raptors. Gull 16(8):l-2. 

Seven condors (six adults, one immature) seen in Sespe Canyon, Ventura County. 
4 December 1933. 

Bolton, H. E. 1927. Fray Juan Crespi, missionary explorer of the Pacific 
Coast, 1769-1774. University of California Press, Berkeley. 402 pp. 
Page 210, description of Indian ritual involving a stuffed bird, apparently a 
condor. 

Borland, H. 1974. Take a long, last look at the condor. Natl. Wildl. 12(3):35- 
36. 
Popular account of condor status, some misinformation. 



102 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Borneman, J. C. 1966a. The disappearing condors of Sespe. Mod. Maturity 
9(5):44-45. 
General account of life history and status. 

Borneman, J. C. 1966b. Return of a condor. Audubon Mag. 68(3):154-157. 
Condor apparently poisoned by strychnine rehabilitated and returned to the wild. 

Borneman, J. C. 1969. California condor preservation program. West. 
Tanager 35(7):59-60. 
General progress report. 

Borneman, J. C. 1970a. Condors. West. Tanager 36(7):1. 
Condor-golden eagle interactions. 

Borneman, J. C. 1970b. California condor newsletter. National Audubon So- 
ciety, Ventura, Calif. 3 pp. 
Progress report on research and management. 

Borneman, J. C. 1971. California condor newsletter #2. National Audubon 
Society, Ventura, Calif. 3 pp. 
Progress report. 

Borneman, J. C. 1972. California condor newsletter #3. National Audubon 
Society, Ventura, Calif. 3 pp. 
Progress report. 

Borneman, J. C. 1973. The condor challenge. West. Tanager 39(11):3. 
Changes in habitat affecting condors. 

Borneman, J. C. 1974a. California condor newsletter #4. National Audubon 
Society, Ventura, Calif. 3 pp. 
Progress report. 

Borneman, J. C. 1974b. The 2:00 o'clock condor. West. Tanager 40(10):3. 
Watching condors at Mt. Pinos, Ventura County. 

Borneman, J. C. 1975a. California condor newsletter #5. National Audubon 
Society, Ventura, Calif. 1 p. 
Progress report. 

Borneman, J. C. 1975b. Improving the odds for survival. West. Tanager 
42(2):3. 
Progress in land acquisition for condors. 

Borneman, J. C. 1976a. California condor newsletter #6. National Audubon 
Society, Ventura, Calif. 2 pp. 
Progress report. 

Borneman, J. C. 1976b. The California condor, year of decision. West. 
Tanager 43(2):3. 
Discusses possibility of captive propagation program for condors. 

Borneman, J. C. 1976c. The victim. Audubon Imprint (Santa Monica Bay 
Audubon Society) l(4):4-5. 
Attempted rehabilitation of a condor found with a broken wing, result of gun- 
shot. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 103 



Borneman, J. C. 1976d. California condors soaring into opaque clouds. Auk 
93(3):636. 
Condors reported circling up into opaque stratus clouds, an occurrence seldom re- 
ported for vultures. 

Brewster, W. 1882. On a collection of birds lately made by Mr. F. Stephens 
in Arizona. Bull. Nuttall Ornithol. Club 7(2):65-86. 
Large vulture seen at Cave Creek, Chiricahua Mountains, 7 March 1881, thought 
to be a California condor. 

Brodkorb, P. 1964. Catalogue of fossil birds. Part 2 (Anseriformes through 
Galliformes). Bull. Fla. State Mus., Biol. Sci. 8(3): 195-335. 
Pages 250-258, summary of fossil records of condor. 

Brown, H. 1899. The California vulture in Arizona. Auk 16(3):272. 

March 1881, describes two birds, possibly condors, seen near Pierce's Ferry, 
western Arizona; one was shot, measured "more than three gun lengths in the 
spread of its wings." 

Brown, L., and D. Amadon. 1968. Eagles, hawks and falcons of the world. 
Vol. 1. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 414 pp. 
Pages 185-189, general life history summary. 

Bryan, M. 1901. A study of the birds of Santiago Canyon. Condor 3(3):81-82. 
Orange County, California, condors once plentiful there, but none "for twelve 
years or more." 

Bryant, C. A. 1933. [Comments in Cooper Club meeting notes.] Condor 
35(3):131. 
Six condors observed in Sespe Canyon, Ventura County, 6 December 1932. 

Bryant, W. E. 1889. Catalogue of the birds of Lower California. Proc. Calif. 
Acad. Sci., Ser. 2, 2:237-320. 
Condors reported "several places" in Baja California. 

Bryant, W. E. 1891. Andrew Jackson Grayson. Zoe 2(l):34-68. 

July 1847, "at least a dozen" condors feeding on a deer carcass, Marin County, 
California. 

Buchheister, C. W. 1965a. Meeting the challenges of the "third wave." 
Audubon Mag. 67(1): 18- 19. 
National Audubon Society proposals to solve condor problems. 

Buchheister, C. W. 1965b. Grave threat to the condor. Audubon Mag. 
67(2):82-83. 
Adverse report on proposed Sespe Water Project. 

Buchheister, C. W. 1965c. Our campaign to save the condor. Audubon Mag. 
67(3):180. 
Audubon assigned naturalist to condor responsibilities; prepared identification 
leaflet. 

Buchheister, C. W. 1965d. Crucial meeting on the condor. Audubon Mag. 
67(5):285. 
National Audubon reports against Sespe Creek dam proposal. 



104 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Buchheister, C. W. 1965e. Annual condor count planned. Audubon Mag. 
67(6):357. 
Preparations for annual survey. See Mallette and Borneman 1966 for results. 

Buchheister, C. W. 1966. Help for the condor. Audubon Mag. 68(1):5. 
Progress report. 

Buntin, J. 1975. Effects of land development practices in Kern County upon 
the California condor. Kern Co. (California) Health Department. 28 pp. 
Discusses condor as related to various land development proposals; recommends 
guidelines for development in condor habitat. 

Burroughs, R. D. 1961. The natural history of the Lewis and Clark expedi- 
tion. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing. 340 pp. 
Summarizes 1805-06 records from Columbia River region, Oregon and Washing- 
ton. 

California Condor Recovery Team. 1974. California condor recovery plan. 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 74 pp. 
Action proposal to maintain a population of at least 50 California condors, well 
distributed within their 1974 range, with an average annual natality of at least 
four birds. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1974. At the crossroads. A report 
on California's endangered and rare fish and wildlife. Sacramento. 112 pp. 

Pages 13-14, status summary. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1976. At the crossroads, 1976: a 
report on California's endangered and rare fish and wildlife. Sacramento. 
101 pp. 

Pages 6-8, status summary. 

Callison, C. H. 1966. Sespe Project setback is condor's reprieve. Audubon 
Mag.68(3):161. 
Ventura County voters reject water project proposal. 

Callison, C. H. 1967. San Rafael and the condors. Audubon Mag. 69(3):57. 
Brief history of San Rafael Wilderness hearings. 

Cant, G. 1960. Condors rising. Sports Illus. 7(29):W2-W10. 
General account of status. 

Caras, R. A. 1970a. Source of the thunder. The biography of a California 
condor. Little, Brown and Co., Boston. 181 pp. 

Highly fictionalized account. 

Caras, R. A. 1970b. Source of the thunder. Audubon 72(6):82-84, 90-131. 
Condensation of Caras 1970a. 

Carrier, W. D. 1971. Habitat management plan for the California condor. 
U.S. Forest Service. 51 pp. 
Forest Service guidelines for condor management. 

Carrier, W. D. 1973. California condor, situation critical. Am. Hiker, 
March:32-35. 

Summary of status and management. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 105 



Carrier, W. D., R. D. Mallette, S. Wilbur, and J. C. Borneman. 1972. Cali- 
fornia condor surveys, 1971. Calif. Fish Game 58(4):327-328. 
Results of 1971 survey attempts. 

Carver, M. 1960. [Report on a California condor captured in Kern County, 
California.] News from the Bird-banders 35(3):34-35. 
Condor found with dislocated leg, veterinarian set leg and bird was released. (Bird 
died according to Miller et al. 1965a.) 

Cassin, J. 1849. Special report on state of the Academy ornithological collec- 
tion. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 4:256-260. 
E. L. Kern collected condors in California in 1845, to be added to the Academy 
collection. 

Cassin, J. 1858. United States exploring expedition during the years 1838- 
1842 under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N. Vol. VIII. Mam- 
malogy and ornithology. J. B. Lippincott and Co., Philadelphia. 466 pp. 

Condors seen on the plains of the Willamette River, Oregon, but "much more nu- 
merous in California." 

Chambers, W. L. 1915. California condor in Los Angeles County. Condor 
17(2):102. 
One condor seen near Covina, 16 February 1916; "used to be very common in this 
range . . . seldom seen now." 

Chambers, W. L. 1936. The hunter versus wildlife. Condor 38(5): 199-202. 
Reports two condors shot and brought to his store. 

Chapman, F. M. 1908. Camps and cruises of an ornithologist. Appleton and 
Co., New York. 432 pp. 
Pages 259-266, observations of condors and condor nests in Piru Creek area, Ven- 
tura County. 

Christy, B. H. 1932. A quest for a condor. Condor 34(l):3-5. 

Trip into California mountains resulted in sighting of two adult condors; no dates 
or places mentioned. 

Clark, A. M. 1962. From grove to cove to grove, a brief history of Carpin- 
teria Valley, California. Privately printed. 93 pp. 
Fantasy. People of Carpinteria declared war on the condors after one stole a baby; 
they hunted them until they finally disappeared from the area. 

Cleland, R. G. 1957. The place called Sespe, the history of a California ranch. 
San Marino, California, Huntington Library. 120 pp. 
Notes that Chumash Indians in Ventura County used condor feathers in cere- 
monial costumes. 

Clement, R. C. 1965. California condor conservation project. West. Tanager 
31(7):62. 
National Audubon Society hires condor naturalist. 

Clement, R. C. 1966. Dangers of pessimism in conservation. Trans. N. Am. 
Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 31:378-381. 
Uses condor as an example of saving or dooming a species by attitude. 



106 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Clement, R. C. 1969. The status of the California condor. Pages 163-169 in 
National Geographic Society Research Report, 1964 Projects. 

Summarizes Miller et al. 1965a. 

Cleveland, C. 1902. [San Diego Natural History Museum notes.] West. Am. 
Sci. 12(8):130-134. 

Condor shot in Cuyamaca Mountains, San Diego County, presented to Museum 
7 May 1880, but no taxidermist in town so the specimen was not saved. 

Clyman, J. 1926. James Clyman, his diaries and reminiscences. Calif. Hist. 
Soc.Q.6(2):136-137. 
Napper Creek (Napa County), California, 16 August 1845, "the royal vulture in 
greate abundance"; 8 September 1845, killed one "royal vulture." 

Cochran, D. M. 1927. California condor. Nat. Mag. 9(6):378. 
Observations of condors in National Zoo. 

Cohen, D. A. 1897. California department. Osprey 1(11-12):150. 

Condor reportedly shot, sold to "a saloon-keeper in a country town for $2.00." 

Cohen, D. A. 1898a. California notes. Osprey 2(9): 120. 
Condor egg reported collected for H. R. Taylor. 

Cohen, D. A. 1898b. California notes. Osprey 2(10):135. 
Two more condor eggs reported collected. 

Cohen, D. A. 1899. Pet California condor. Osprey 3(5):78. 

Photo and description of Frank Holmes' pet condor "Ben Butler." 

Cohen, N. W. 1951. California condors in Madera County, California. Condor 
53(3):158. 
Nine condors seen at O'Neals, 30 August 1950. 

Cooley, R. A., and G. M. Kohls. 1944. The Argasidae of North America, Cen- 
tral America and Cuba. Am. Midi. Nat., Monogr. 1:1-152. 

Argas reflexus, "pigeon tick," collected near condor nests. 

Cooper, J. G. 1870. Ornithology of California. Vol. 1, land birds. Welch, Bige- 
low and Co., Cambridge. 592 pp. 

Pages 495-503, compilation of then current fact and misinformation. 

Cooper, J. G. 1871. Monterey in the dry season. Am. Nat. 4(12):756-758. 

August-September 1861, condor listed as one of "the most characteristic land 
birds." 

Cooper, J. G. 1890. A doomed bird. Zoe l(8):248-249. 

May 1872, Orange County, California: one condor observed, apparently hurt or 
sick; general comments on apparent decline of the species. 

Cooper, J. G., and G. Suckley. 1859. The natural history of Washington Ter- 
ritory. Bailliere Bros., New York. 399 pp. 
No positive records of condor during 1853-1854, one possible. 

Cooper, T. 1976. Government flimflam threatens the condor. Defenders 
Wildl. 51(3):204-205. 
Rabid criticism of government biologists for not taking a stronger stand against 
a proposed phosphate mine; collusion suggested. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 107 



Coues, E. 1866. List of the birds of Fort Whipple, Arizona. Proc. Acad. Nat. 
Sci. Phila. 18:39-100. 

"Resident in southern Arizona," individual birds reported at Fort Yuma, Sep- 
tember 1865. 

Coues, E. 1897. The manuscript journals of Alexander Henry and of David 
Thompson, 1799-1814. Edited by E. Coues. Francis P. Harper, New York. 
1027 pp. 
January 1814, two records of condors near Portland, Oregon. 

Cowles, R. B. 1958. Starving the condors? Calif. Fish Game 44(2):175-181. 
Suggests that fire control has indirectly harmed condors by increasing brush 
cover, decreasing availability of animal carcasses. 

Cowles, R. B. 1967. Fire suppression, faunal changes and condor diets. 

Pages 217-224 in Proceedings of California Tall Timbers Fire Ecology 

Conference, November 9-10. 
Suggests that condors are not getting enough calcium in their diet (small mam- 
mals less available as food), so egg production is declining. 

Crandall, L. S. 1925. Giant birds of prey. Mentor 13(5):1-12. 
Brief popular account of condor included. 

Crandall, L. S. 1927. Great birds of prey. N.Y. Zool. Soc. Bull. 30(2):26-47. 
Includes two photos of immature condors. 

Cruickshank, A. D. 1944. In quest of the condor. Nat. Mag. 37(1):13, 48. 
Seeing condors near Fillmore, Ventura County. 

Crowe, E. 1957. Men of El Tejon, empire in the Tehachapis. Ward Ritchie 
Press, Los Angeles. 165 pp. 
Pages 101-103, story about capturing a condor. 

Curl, A. L. 1958. [Cooper Society meeting notes.] Condor 60(1):72. 

D. McLean reports two condors feeding on a dead cow near Mt. Hamilton, Santa 
Clara County, 15 July 1958. 

Daggett, F. S. 1898a. Eagle or vulture? Osprey 2(10):133. 
Possible condor near Paso Robles. 

Daggett, F. S. 1898b. Capture of a California condor. Osprey 2(10):134. 

Immature condor with broken wing found in San Gabriel Canyon, Los Angeles 
County, 4 March 1898; kept alive, later became museum specimen. 

Daggett, F. S. 1901a. Capture of a California condor near Pomona, Cali- 
fornia. Condor 3(2):48. 
Immature condor shot in Los Angeles County, 16 January 1901, brought to 
Daggett. 

Daggett, F. S. 1901b. Summer observations in the southern Sierras. Condor 
3(5):117-119. 
June 1901, one condor seen near Grapevine, Kern County; local residents report- 
ing seeing "numbers of them" at times. 

Daniel, J. W. 1900. A day in Rubio Canyon. Wilson Bull. 32(l):2-4. 
One condor seen near Pasadena; no date given. 



108 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Daniel, J. W. 1903. National Zoo bird items. Am. Ornithol. 3(7):236-237. 
Two condors in National Zoo; photo of immature bird. 

Davie, O. 1898. Nests and eggs of North American birds. David McKay, 
Philadelphia. 509 pp. 

Pages 191-194, summary of egg collecting records. 

Davis, M. 1946. Morning display of the California condor. Auk 63(1):85. 
Describes spread-wing postures of captive condor. 

Dawson, W. L. 1923. The birds of California. South Moulton Co., San Diego. 
2121 pp. 
General account of life history and status; firsthand account of visiting a condor 
nest. 

Dawson, W. L., and J. H. Bowles. 1909. The birds of Washington. Occidental 
Publishing Co., Seattle. 997 pp. 
Condor believed to be a former visitor from the south; no longer seen. 

de la Ascension, A. 1928. Father Antonio de la Ascension's account of the 
voyage of Sebastian Vizcaino. Calif. Hist. Soc. Q. 7(4):295-394. 
December 1602, birds that were probably condors seen at Monterey, California; 
not feeding on a whale, as record is often interpreted. 

Delaney, J. 1974. Saving the thunderbird. San Jose Mercury-News, Cali- 
fornia Today Suppl., 15 September: 20-21. 
Popular status report. 

De Lasaux, H. 1954. California condor will soar again. Am. For. 60(3):13, 49. 
Popular status report. 

De Saussure, R. 1956. Remains of the California condor in Arizona caves. 
Plateau 29(2):44-45. 
Condor bones found in three caves in Grand Canyon area. 

De Schauensee, R. M. 1941. Rare and extinct birds in the collection of the 
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 
93:281-324. 
Four condor specimens. 

Devoe, A. 1953. Vanishing giants. American Weekly, 19 July:6-8. 
Controversy over San Diego Zoo attempt to capture condors. 

Dillard, G. M. 1938. [Letter to the editor.] Calif. Conserv. 3(4):8. 

Trip to Sisquoc Falls, September 1889, "20 or 30" condors roosting there. 

Dillon, R. 1966. The legend of Grizzly Adams. New York, Coward-McCann, 
Inc. 223 pp. 

May or June 1854, Walker River, Nevada; Adams reportedly shot a condor (may 
be fictional). 

Dixon, J. 1924. California condors breed in captivity. Condor 26(5):192. 

Egg laying (none fertile) by condors in National Zoo; bird 12 years old when first 
egg laid. 

Douglas, D. 1829. Observations on the Vultur Californianus of Shaw. 
Vigor's Zool. J. 4(l):328-330. 

Observations made in Washington and Oregon as far north as the Canadian 
border, most common along the lower Columbia River. Famous nonsense about 
black eggs and nests on ground. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 109 



Douglas, D. 1914. Journal kept by David Douglas during his travels in 
North America, 1823-1827. London, William Wesley and Son. 364 pp. 

Condors "plentiful" on Umpqua River, Oregon, 3 October 1823 — nine seen in one 
flock; winter 1826-1827, lower Columbia River area, many condors seen (two col- 
lected), but seldom more than one or two at a time. 

Downie, D. 1966. The compleat pilot — try it on quiet wings. Private Pilot 
Mag. 2(12):21-23, 44. 
Condor photographed from a sailplane. 

Drury, C. M., ed. 1957. Diary of Titian Ramsay Peale. Los Angeles, 
Dawson's Book Store. 85 pp. 

Condors seen in Umpqua River area, Oregon, 24 October 1841; condors seen near 
Mt. Shasta and in northern Sacramento Valley, October 1841. 

Dunn, H. H. 1905. The California Vulture. Am. Ornithol. 5(12):289-292. 

General account; brief account of visiting condor nests with eggs in Orange and 
Los Angeles counties. 

Dunn, H. H. 1907. How I found the nest of the condor. Am. Boy 8(4):127. 

Nest visited in Orange County in late April, about 1904; nestling and two adult 
condors seen. 

Dyer, E. 1. 1935. Meeting the condor on its own ground. Condor 37(1):5-11. 
Put bait out to attract condors, seven (five adults, two immatures) came to bait; 
also 1933 report of two condors, Santa Clara County. 

Edwards, H. A. 1913. California condor. Oologist 30(5):74. 

One condor seen at Eagle Rock, Los Angeles County, 14 February 1913. 

Eissler, F. 1964. Condors and wilderness. Sierra Club Bull. 49(3):10-12. 
Controversy over Sierra Madre Ridge road proposal. 

Elliott, C, ed. 1942. Fading trails, the story of endangered American wild- 
life. MacMillan Co., New York. 279 pp. 

Pages 118-126, popular summary of life history and status. 

Emerson, W. O. 1887. Ornithological observations in San Diego County. 
Bull. Calif. Acad. Sci. 2:419-431. 
April 1884, one condor seen, Poway Valley. 

Evermann, B. W. 1886a. The yellow-billed magpie. Am. Nat. 20(7):607-611. 
Condor feeding on dead pig near Santa Paula, 2 April 1881. 

Evermann, B. W. 1886b. A list of the birds observed in Ventura County, 
California. Auk 3(l):86-94, 3(2):179-186. 
Condor listed as "resident." 

Evermann, B. W. 1886c. Birds observed in Ventura County, California. Pac. 
Sci. Mon. l(8):77-89. 
Condor "resident." 

Fannin, J. 1897. The California vulture in Alberta. Auk 14(1):89. 

Two condors reported near Calgary, 10 September 1896; record disputed. 

Farquhar, F. P., ed. 1930. Up and down California in 1860-1864, the journal 
of William H. Brewer. Yale University Press, New Haven. 601 pp. 
Condors reported near Monterey in May 1861, and near Pescadero, Monterey 
County, in July 1861. 



110 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Finley, W. L. 1906. Life history of the California condor. Part I. Condor 
8(6):135-142. 
Detailed observations at Los Angeles County nest site. 

Finley, W. L. 1908a. Life history of the California condor. Part II. Condor 
10(1):5-10. 
Good compilation of distribution, and egg and skin collecting records. 

Finley, W. L. 1908b. Life history of the California condor. Part III. Condor 
10(2):59-65. 
More observations at Los Angeles County nest. 

Finley, W. L. 1908c. Home life of the California condor. Century 75(3):370- 
380. 
Nest observations. 

Finley, W. L. 1908d. California condor. Sci. Am. 99(l):7-8. 
General life history. 

Finley, W. L. 1909. General, a pet California condor. Ctry. Life 16(l):35-38. 
Observations of a captive bird. 

Finley, W. L. 1910. Life history of the California condor. Condor 12(1):5-11. 
Behavior of "General," an immature condor, in captivity. 

Finley, W. L., and I. Finley. 1915. Condor as a pet. Bird-lore 17(5):413-419. 
"General," the condor. 

Finley, W. L., and I. Finley. 1926. Passing of the California condor. Nat. 
Mag. 8(2):95-99. 
Popular account of life history and status. 

Fisher, A. K. 1893. Report on the ornithology of the Death Valley expedition 
of 1891. N. Am. Fauna 7:7-158. 
Condor "still tolerably common in certain localities west of the Sierra Nevada"; 
two possible sightings in Owens Valley. 

Fisher, H. 1. 1939. Pterylosis of the black vulture. Auk 56(4):407-410. 
Feather tracts compared to Gymnogyps and other cathartids. 

Fisher, H. 1. 1942. The pterylosis of the Andean condor. Condor 44(l):30-32. 
Compared with other cathartids. 

Fisher, H. 1. 1943. The pterylosis of the king vulture. Condor 45(2):69-73. 
Compared with other cathartids. 

Fisher, H. I. 1944. The skulls of the cathartid vultures. Condor 46(6):272- 
296. 
Comparisons of cathartid skulls with other falconiform birds; concludes that 
Pleistocene and Recent California condors represent different species. 

Fisher, H. I. 1945a. Flying ability and the anterior intermuscular line on the 
coracoid. Auk 62(1): 125-1 29. 
Cathartid vultures compared with other birds. 

Fisher, H. I. 1945b. Locomotion in the fossil vulture Teratornis. Am. Midi. 
Nat. 33(3):725-742. 
Compared to Gymnogyps. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 111 

Fisher, H. I. 1946. Adaptations and comparative anatomy of the locomotor 
apparatus of New World vultures. Am. Midi. Nat. 35(3):545-727. 
Good discussion of flight, use of legs, etc., by Gymnogyps and other American 
vultures. 

Fisher, H. I. 1947. The skeletons of recent and fossil Gymnogyps. Pac. Sci. 
l(4):227-236. 
Significance tests from 34 different measurements and ratios "demonstrate con- 
clusively that we are dealing with two distinct forms." 

Fisher, W. K. 1904. California vulture in San Mateo Co., California. Condor 
6(2):50. 

January 1904, one condor seen near Stanford University. 

Fleming, J. H. 1924. The California condor in Washington: another version 
of an old record. Condor 26(3):111-112. 
David Douglas collections, 1827. 

Flint, P. 1940. Speaking of wings. Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine, 29 
September: 7-8. 

Aviation engineers make detailed examinations of condor museum specimens; 
J. R. Pemberton films condors at a carcass. 

Fox, W. W. 1973. Condors. Sci. Dig. 74(l):34-38. 
Popular compilation. 

Fox, W. W. 1974. Will the condor wander yonder? Westways 66(2):56-58, 68, 
70. 

Popular compilation. 

Frazer, J. G. 1935. The golden bough: a study of magic and religion. The 
MacMillan Co., New York, 752 pp. 
Pages 499-501, sacrificial use of condor by California Indians. 

Friedmann, H. 1950. The birds of North and Middle America. Part XI. U.S. 
Natl. Mus. Bull. 50. 793 pp. 

Pages 51-59, description and bibliography. 

Friedmann, H., L. Griscom, and R. T. Moore. 1950. Distributional check-list 
of the birds of Mexico. Pac. Coast Avifauna 29:1-202. 
Condor believed extinct in Baja California. 

Fry, W. 1926. The California condor — a modern roc. Gull 8(5): 1-3. 

Two condors presumably killed by eating poisoned sheep carcass, 1890; proposes 
law to make killing condors, taking condor eggs, or putting out poisoned baits 
felonies. 

Fry, W. 1928. The California condor — a modern roc. Sequoia National Park, 
Nature Guide Service, Bull. 23. 2 pp. 
Fry 1926, plus compilation of records for Sequoia National Park and vicinity. 

Gabrielson, I. N., and S. G. Jewett. 1940. Birds of Oregon. Oregon State 
College, Corvallis. 650 pp. 

Summarizes Oregon condor records. 

Gailey, J., and N. Boliwig. 1973. Observations on the behavior of the An- 
dean condor (Vultur gryphus). Condor 75(l):60-63. 
Courtship compared to Gymnogyps. 



112 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Gale, N. B., and F. S. Todd. 1968. A note on the California condor Gymno- 
gyps californianus at Los Angeles Zoo. Int. Zoo Yearb. 8:213. 
Captive immature. 

Gallaher, W. 1906. A novel find. Condor 8(2):57. 

November 1905, "dried up" condor egg found in Ventura County. 

Gambel, W. 1846. Remarks on the birds observed in upper California. Proc. 
Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 3:44-48. 
General comments on condor, apparently not firsthand. 

Gass, P. 1904. Gass's journal of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Reprint of 
edition of 1811. A. C. McClurg and Co., Chicago. 298 pp. 

Condor records along Columbia River, 1806. 

Gedney, P. L. 1900. Nesting of the condor on the slope of the Cuyamacas, 
San Diego Co., Cal. Condor 2(6):124-126. 
Condor egg taken from Boulder Creek area. 

Gifford, E. W. 1926. Miwok cults. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Archeol. Ethnol. 
18(3):391-408. 
Condor (moluku) important "bird chief," used in Miwok ceremonies. 

Gifford, E. W. 1932. The Northfork Mono. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Archeol. 
Ethnol. 31(2):15-65. 
Condor (nuniyot) reputed to carry off sleeping people. 

Gifford, E. W. 1955. Central Miwok ceremonies. Univ. Calif. Anthropol. Rec. 
14(4):261-318. 
Description of moluku dance, celebrating the killing of a condor. 

Gifford, E. W., and G. H. Block. 1930. California Indian nights entertain- 
ments. Arthur H. Clark Co., Glendale. 323 pp. 

Condor a good character in myths of Humboldt County (Wiyot) Indians, a bad 
character in Madera County (Western Mono) myth. 

Gilbert, B. 1967. A close look at wildlife in America. Saturday Evening Post 
240(18):32-48. 
Condor included in popular account. 

Gilman, M. F. 1907. Measuring a condor. Condor 9(4): 106-108. 

Records of 2 condors shot in San Diego County, 1900-1901; 1888, 14 condors seen 
in San Bernardino County; two presumed nest sites in San Jacinto Mountain 
area, Riverside County. 

Goddard, P. E. 1929. The Bear River dialect of Athapascan. Univ. Calif. 
Publ. Am. Archeol. Ethnol. 24(5):291-324. 
Humboldt County Indians may have had a name for the condor — yondiyauw = 
eats whale. 

Goldman, E. W. 1951. Biological investigations in Mexico. Smithsonian In- 
stitution, Washington, D.C. 476 pp. 
July 1905, Sierra San Pedro Martir, Baja California: condors "rather common," 
saw about a dozen on a burro carcass, collected one. 

Gray, G. R. 1844. List of the specimens of birds in the collection of the 
British Museum. Part I — Accipiters. London. 209 pp. 

One condor specimen (the type specimen). 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 113 

Greene, C, and J. Olsen. 1941. Meet the giant California condor, the world's 
largest bird. Man to Man 17:38-39, 78-79. 
Highly popularized account of condor observations. 

Greene, E. R. 1966. A lifetime with the birds: an ornithological logbook. 
Edwards Bros. Inc., Ann Arbor. 404 pp. 
Observations of condors in the Sespe area, 1949-1958. 

Greenway, J. C, Jr. 1958. Extinct and vanishing birds of the world. Ameri- 
can Committee for International Wildlife Protection, New York. 518 pp. 
General summary of life history and status. 

Grinnell, J. 1898. Birds of the Pacific slope of Los Angeles County. Pasa- 
dena Acad. Sci. Publ. 2. 52 pp. 
Condor "tolerably common" and "not by any means becoming extinct." 

Grinnell, J. 1905a. Old Fort Tejon. Condor 7(1):9-13. 

July 1904, Kern County, saw two condors, others reported them common in the 
vicinity. 

Grinnell, J. 1905b. Summer birds of Mt. Pinos, California. Auk 22(4):378- 
391. 
Late June 1904, saw single condors twice; local residents said condors were 
common. 

Grinnell, J. 1909. Editorial notes and news. Condor 11(3): 104. 

Immature condor shot at Los Angeles County nest site, shooter fined $50. 

Grinnell, J. 1915. A distributional list of the birds of California. Pac. Coast 
Avifauna 11. 217 pp. 

Condor distribution summarized. 

Grinnell, J. 1928. A distributional summation of the ornithology of Lower 
California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 32(1): 1-300. 
Condor records in Baja California summarized. 

Grinnell, J. 1932a. Type localities of birds described from California. Univ. 
Calif. Publ. Zool. 38(3):243-324. 
Condor type in British Museum, probably collected near Monterey, California, in 
late 1792 or early 1793. 

Grinnell, J. 1932b. Archibald Menzies, first collector of California birds. 
Condor 34(6):243-252. 
Description of condor type specimen. 

Grinnell, J., J. Dixon, and J. M. Linsdale. 1930. Vertebrate natural history 
of a section of northern California through Lassen Peak. University of 
California Press, Berkeley. 594 pp. 
Historical records reviewed, no recent condor reports from area. 

Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of Cali- 
fornia. Pac. Coast Avifauna 27. 608 pp. 
Distribution summary. 

Grinnell, J., and H. S. Swarth. 1913. An account of the birds and mammals 
of the San Jacinto area of southern California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 
10(10):197-406. 
Condor former resident, no recent records. 



114 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Grinnell, J., and M. W. Wythe. 1927. Directory of the bird-life of the San 
Francisco Bay region. Pac. Coast Avifauna 18. 160 pp. 

Summary of condor records; none since 1904. 

Groner, D. E. 1956. [Cooper Ornithological Society meeting notes.] Condor 
58(1):80. 
Five condors seen near Fillmore, Ventura County, 16 October 1955. 

Groner, D. E. 1958. [Cooper Ornithological Society meeting notes.] Condor 
60(2):143. 

At least 17 (possibly 25-30) condors at Mt. Pinos, Ventura County, 24 August 
1957. 

Gurney, J. H. 1894. Catalogue of the birds of prey with the number of speci- 
mens in Norwich Museum. London. 56 pp. 

Museum had four skins, one skeleton, one egg on condor. "Lord Walsingham has 
shot vultures a good bit north of Mendocino (northern California), probably the 
rare Pseudogryphus (Gymnogyps) californianus. " 

Hall, F. W. 1933a. Studies in the history of ornithology in the State of Wash- 
ington (1792-1932) with special reference to the discovery of new species. 
Part II, Lewis and Clark. Murrelet 14(3):55-70. 
Summarizes condor sightings by Lewis and Clark, Columbia River area, 1806. 

Hall, F. W. 1933b. Studies in the history of ornithology in the State of Wash- 
ington. Part III, David Douglas, Murrelet 15(1):3-19. 
Summarizes David Douglas condor records. 

Hamilton, A. 1952. Can the condor come back? Sci. Dig. 31(2):27-31. 
Popular summary, past and present. 

Harris, H. 1928. Robert Ridgway. Condor 30(1):4-118. 
Dr. Langley condor flight computations discussed. 

Harris, H. 1941. The annals of Gymnogyps to 1900. Condor 43(l):3-55. 
Excellent summary of early written records of condors. 

Harrison, G. 1967. The valley of the condors. Natl. Wildl. 5(6):4-9. 
Popular account of trip to Sespe Condor Sanctuary. 

Heald, W. F. 1960. Last stand of the California condor. Frontiers 25(2): 105- 
106, 128. 
Popular summary. 

Heermann, A. L. 1859. Report of explorations and surveys for a railroad 

route from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, 1853-56. Vol. 10, 

Part 4, pages 29-80 in Report upon the birds collected on the survey. 

Beverly Tucker, Washington. 

Records for Tejon Valley, Kern County, 1853; two nests presumably seen in the 

Sierra Nevada, one in San Diego County. 

Heizer, R. F., and G. W. Hewes. 1940. Animal ceremonialism in central Cali- 
fornia in the light of archeology. Am. Anthropol., New Ser. 42(4):587-603. 
Bones and feet of condors and other raptors found in Indian burial sites, appar- 
ently part of regalia rather than actual burial of birds. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 115 



Henshaw, H. W. 1875. Report upon the ornithological collections made in 
portions of Nevada, Utah, California, Colorado and New Mexico during 
the years 1871, 1872, 1873 and 1874. Vol. V., Chapter III, pages 133-508 
in U.S. Geographical Survey west of the 100th Meridian. U.S. Govern- 
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

One condor seen feeding on a dead horse with turkey vultures, Beaver, Utah, 25 
November 1872. 

Henshaw, H. W. 1876. Report on the ornithology of the portions of Cali- 
fornia visited during the field season of 1875. Pages 224-278 in 
G. M. Wheeler, Annual report upon the geographical survey west of the 
100th Meridian in California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New 
Mexico, Arizona and Montana. U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash- 
ington, D.C. 
Few condors seen; "it seems highly probable that great numbers of these birds" 
have died from eating strychnine-poisoned carcasses (but no details given). 

Henshaw, H. W. 1920. Autobiographical notes. Condor 22(1):3-10. 

Four condors seen at Mission San Antonio, Monterey County, 27 September 
1884; hunter later collected three specimens for Henshaw. 

Hess, C. N. 1930. King condor. Touring Topics 22(8):18-21, 56. 
Comprehensive popular article. 

Hess, C. N. 1957. Sky sovereign. Westways 49(3):20-21. 
Popular account. 

Hill, B. M., and I. L. Wiggins. 1948. Ornithological notes from lower Cali- 
fornia. Condor 50(4):155-161. 
Summary of earlier sightings, no condors since 1935. 

Hill, N. P. 1944. Sexual dimorphism in the Falconiformes. Auk 61(2):228- 
234. 
Wing, tail, tarsus, and culmen measurements show male and female condors 
about same size. 

Hilton, J. R. 1971. What fate for Gymnogyps? Calif. Condor (Society for the 
Preservation of Birds of Prey) 6(2): 1-5. 
Popular summary of recent research and management. 

Hilton, J. R. 1976. California condor: captive breeding in its future? Raptor 
Rep. 4(3):15. 
Pros and cons of captive propagation discussed. 

Hoffman, W. H. 1895. Notes on California condors. Avifauna 1(2):17-19. 
Condor egg collection records. 

Hoffmann, R. 1930. California condor. Gull 12(10):6. 

Recent (no date) sighting of 10 condors (8 adults, 2 immatures) in Sisquoc Falls 
Area, Santa Barbara County. 

Holland, H. 1945. America's largest flyer. Fauna 7(3):86-89. 
General account of history and current status. 



116 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Holmes, F. H. 1897. A pet condor. Nidiologist 4(6):58-59. 
Description and photos of captive immature "Ben Butler." 

Hovland, C, and D. Hovland. 1972. America's endangered wildlife. Tower 
Publications, New York. 182 pp. 
Pages 37-42, popular account, some inaccuracies. 

Howard, H. 1929. The avifauna of Emeryville shellmound. Univ. Calif. Publ. 
Zool. 32(2):301-394. 
Bones of one condor found. 

Howard, H. 1930. A census of the Pleistocene birds of Rancho La Brea from 
the collections of the Los Angeles Museum. Condor 32(2):81-89. 
Pleistocene Gymnogyps abundant in the fossil record. 

Howard, H. 1938. [Cooper Ornithological Society meeting notes.] Condor 
40(3):132. 
Hearsay report of condor found dead after feeding on deer carcass; another 
condor caught in an animal trap. 

Howard, H. 1947. A preliminary survey of trends in avian evolution from 
Pleistocene to recent times. Condor 49(1): 10- 13. 
All Pleistocene condors now considered G. amplus. 

Howard, H. 1952. The prehistoric avifauna of Smith Creek Cave, Nevada, 
with a description of a new gigantic raptor. Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 
51(2):50-54. 
Five bone fragments tentatively classified as Gymnogyps. 

Howard, H. 1962a. Bird remains from a prehistoric cave deposit in Grant 
County, New Mexico. Condor 64(3):241-242. 
At least eight individual condors represented, including three very young birds. 

Howard, H. 1962b. A comparison of avian assemblages from individual pits 
at Rancho La Brea, California. Los Ang. Cty. Mus. Contrib. Sci. 58. 24 pp. 
Two hundred fifteen Gymnogyps amplus specimens, apparently more in older 
pits than in more recent deposits. 

Howard, H. 1971. Quaternary avian remains from Dark Canyon Cave, New 
Mexico. Condor 73(2):237-240. 
Seventeen bones of Gymnogyps amplus found; previous identification of condor 
bones in Shelter Cave (Howard and Miller 1933) in error, bones reassigned to 
Breagyps. 

Howard, H. 1974. Postcranial elements of the extinct condor Breagyps 
clarki (Miller). Los Ang. Nat. Hist. Mus., Contrib. Sci. 256:1-24. 
Detailed comparison of bones with those of Gymnogyps and Vultur. 

Howard, H., and A. H. Miller. 1933. Bird remains from cave deposits in New 
Mexico. Condor 35(1):15-18. 
Condor bones found in two caves. 

Howard, H., and A. H. Miller. 1939. The avifauna associated with human re- 
mains at Rancho La Brea, California. Carnegie Inst. Publ. 514:39-48. 
Only one condor specimen in pit containing human remains. 

Howard, J. and M. Howard. 1967. Condor. Better Camping 8(9):32-35. 
Where and how to observe condors. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 117 



Howland, S. 1882. Golden eagle's eggs. Ornithol. Oologist 7(17):131. 
Notes that J. G. Cooper has condor egg in possession. 

Hubbard, F. 1969. 130 man survey team reports 52 condors. Outdoor Calif. 
30(l):4-5. 
1968 cooperative survey results. 

Hubbard, F. 1972. California's condor — winning or losing? Outdoor Calif. 
33(6):1. 

1972 cooperative survey. 

Huey, L. M. 1926. Notes from northwestern Lower California, with the de- 
scription of an apparently new race of the screech owl. Auk 43(3):347-362. 
One condor in Sierra San Pedro Martir, 12 June 1923; one condor in Sierra Juarez, 
21 July 1924. 

Huey, L. M. 1938. Frank Stephens, pioneer. Condor 40(3): 101-1 10. 
November 1908, one condor seen on Mexican border near Pacific Ocean. 

Hunter, J. S. 1904. Records from the vicinity of Watsonville, California. 
Condor 6(1 ):24-25. 

Summer 1903, condors seen several times. 

Ingersoll, A. M. 1919. Albert Mills Ingersoll — an autobiography. Condor 
21(2):53-57. 
Brief mention of condor egg in his possession. 

James, G. W. 1906. The wonders of the Colorado Desert. Little, Brown and 
Co., Boston. 547 pp. 

Reports a condor killed, details not clear. 

Jenkins, H. O. 1906. A list of birds collected between Monterey and San 
Simeon in the Coast Range of California. Condor 8(5): 122-1 30. 
Eight to ten condors roosting in redwood grove. Villa Creek, Monterey County, 
18 July 1905. 

Jewett, S. C, W. P. Taylor, W. T. Shaw, and J. W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of 
Washington State. University Washington Press, Seattle. 767 pp. 
Summarizes Washington records; last record apparently 30 September 1897, one 
bird near Coulee City. 

Johnson, H. T. 1945. California condors in San Luis Obispo County, Cali- 
fornia. Condor 47(1 ):38. 
Twenty condors feeding on animal carcass, Cholame Flats, 14 June 1944. 

Jordan, D. S. 1922. The days of a man. Vol. I. World Book Co., Yonkers on 
Hudson. 709 pp. 
Condors seen and reportedly nesting, 1904-1908, Pinnacles area, San Benito 
County. 

Josephy, A. M. Jr. 1951. Condors don't pay taxes. Blue Book, December: 
52-55. 
Popular account of establishing Sespe Condor Sanctuary. 

Keast, D. N. 1965. The noise environment of the California condor. Bolt, 
Beranek and Newman, Inc., Los Angeles. 29 pp. 
Evaluates noise levels in Sespe Condor Sanctuary in relation to proposed Sespe 
Water Project. 



118 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Kellogg, F. L. 1910. Mallophagan parasites from the California condor. 
Science 31(784):33-34. 
Two species, Menopon and Lipeurus, removed from one condor specimen. 

Kelly, A. 1906. How the condor seeks its food. Outing 47(6):782. 

A number of condors (unspecified, but apparently quite a few) attracted to a cow 
carcass on Tejon Ranch, Kern County. 

Kermode, F. 1904. Catalogue of British Columbia birds. Victoria, B.C. 
69 pp. 
Condor records summarized; concludes it is an accidental visitant. 

Kessler, J. 1941. The big three. Cassinia 31:25-33. 

1937, two condors seen in Sespe Canyon, Ventura County. 

Kofoid, C. A. 1923. An early account of the California condor. Condor 
25(l):29-30. 
Adolphe Boucard description of condors on whale, San Francisco, 1851 or 1852. 

Koford, C. B. 1953a. [Photograph of nestling condor.] Condor 55(3):150. 

Koford, C. B. 1953b. The California condor. Natl. Audubon Soc. Res. Rep. 4. 
154 pp. 

Monographic study of condors, particularly nesting activity. 

Kohls, G. M., and H. Hoogstraal. 1960. Observations on the subgenus A rgas 
(Ixodoidea, Argasidae, Argas). 2 A. Cooleyi, new species, from western 
North American birds. Annals Entomol. Soc. Am. 53(5):625-631. 
Tick recorded three times in vicinity of condor nest. 

Kroeber, A. L. 1906-07. Indian myths of south central California. Univ. 
Calif. Publ. Am. Archeol. Ethnol. 4(4):167-250. 
Condor (called "wech") portrayed as bad influence in three Yokut myths. 

Kroeber, A. L. 1908. A mission record of the California Indians. Univ. Calif. 
Publ. Am. Archeol. Ethnol. 8(1):1-127. 
Luiseno Indian name for condor is "Yungavaiwot"; condor not as important in 
ceremonies as is eagle. 

Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithson. Inst. 
Bur. Am. Ethnol. Bull., 78. 995 pp. 
Condor described in legends and ceremonies of Indian tribes throughout Cali- 
fornia. 

Kroeber, A. L. 1929. The Valley Nisenan. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Archeol. 
Ethnol. 24(4):253-290. 
Sacramento Valley Indians included condor (mo'lok') in myth about origin of fire. 

Kushlan, J. A. 1973. Spread-wing posturing in cathartid vultures. Auk 
90(4):889-890. 
Comparative behavior of vultures. 

Larson, G. C. 1975. Westerlies: Sanctuary. Flying 96(5):80-81. 
Popular account of aircraft restrictions in condor nesting areas. 

Law, L. B. 1934a. [Meeting notes, Cooper Ornithological Club.] Condor 
36(1):48. 
S. Peyton reports two probable nestlings in Sespe Area. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 119 



Law, L. B. 1934b. [Meeting notes, Cooper Ornithological Club.] Condor 
36(4):184. 
Six condors seen, Sespe Canyon, 22 April 1934. 

Law, L. B. 1935. [Meeting notes, Cooper Ornithological Club.] Condor 
37(4):221. 
Clam shells in 1934 condor nest; two condors seen, Gaviota Pass, Santa Barbara 
County. 

Lawrence, R. E. 1893. Pseudogryphus californianus. Auk 10(3):300-301. 
Data on three condor specimens. 

Lawrence, R. E. 1894. The California vulture in the San Gabriel Range, Cali- 
fornia. Auk ll(l):76-77. 
Condor shot at, but apparently not killed. 

Laycock, G. 1968. The rancher and the condors. Farm Q. 23(3):74- 
75,86,90,92. 
Popular status report. 

Leach, F. A. 1929. A turkey buzzard roost. Condor 31(l):21-23. 

Napa County, California: condors frequently seen 1857-1860, seldom seen after 
1860. 

Levy, C. 1965. The California condor. Calif. Monthly 75(3):44-45. 
Popular summary of Miller et al. 1965. 

Ligon, J. D. 1967. Relationship of the Cathartid vultures. Occas. Pap. Mus. 
Zool., Univ. Mich. 651:1-26. 
Concludes that Cathartidae "are not at all closely related to the remainder of the 
Falconiformes, that they share a great many features with the storks, Cinconi- 
idae." 

Linsdale, J. M. 1936. The birds of Nevada. Pac. Coast Avifauna 23. 145 pp. 
One post-Pleistocene record for the State. 

Linsdale, J. M. 1951. A list of the birds of Nevada. Condor 53(5):228-249. 
One post-Pleistocene record for the State. 

Linton, C. B. 1908. Notes from Buena Vista Lake, May 20 to June 16, 1907. 
Condor 10(5): 196-198. 
"Reported breeding in mountains near lake." 

Locke, L. N., G. E. Bagley, D. N. Frickie, and L. T. Young. 1969. Lead 
poisoning and aspergillosis in an Andean condor. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 
155(7):1052-1056. 

Lead shot ingested with food; suggest California condor may be susceptible to 

same. 

Loeb, E. M. 1926. Porno folkways. Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Archeol. Ethnol. 
19(2):149-404. 
Pages 384-385, Porno condor dance described. 

Lofberg, L. M. 1936. Twenty condors dine together. Condor 38(4): 177. 

Twenty condors on sheep carcass east of Bakersfield. Kern County, 25 April 
1936; winter 1936, "good authority" reports six condors in Breckenridge Moun- 
tain area, Kern County. 



120 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Lovejoy, T. 1976. We must decide which species will go forever. Smithsonian 
7(4):52-59. 
Using a trip to see condors as a springboard, discusses the problems of impending 
extinctions and concludes (unhappily) that we may have to set up a system of de- 
ciding what to save and what not to save. 

Lucas, F. A. 1891. Animals recently extinct or threatened with extermina- 
tion, as represented in the collections of the United States National 
Museum. Pages 609-649 in Annual Report of the U.S. National Museum, 
1889. 
Doubts that killing condors for their quills was an important mortality factor. 

Lume, C. R. 1938. Stalking America's mightiest bird. Travel Mag. 70(3):30- 
31, 52-53. 
Dramatic and exaggerated story of collecting a condor egg in Baja California. 

Lyon, M. W., Jr. 1918. [Report of the Secretary. Biological Society of Wash- 
ington, 20 October 1917.] J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 8(l):25-28. 
Fall 1879, sight record of two condors feeding on sheep carcass near Boise, Idaho. 

MacDonald, R. 1964. A death road for the condor. Sports Illus. 20(14):86-89. 
Sierra Madre Ridge Road proposal, Santa Barbara County. 

Macoun, J., and J. M. Macoun. 1909. Catalogue of Canadian birds. Govern- 
ment Printing Office, Ottawa. 761 pp. 

Several pre-1893 British Columbia records; refutes Alberta sighting (Fannin 
1897). 

Mailliard, J., and J. W. Mailliard. 1901. Birds recorded at Paicines, San 
Benito Co., California. Condor 3(5):120-127. 
Formerly abundant, now rarely seen. 

Mallette, R. D. 1970. Operational management plan for California condor. 
California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 58 pp. 
Management and research guidelines. 

Mallette, R. D. 1971. Results of California condor baiting effort, 1967-1969. 
Calif. Dep. Fish Game, Wildl. Manage. Branch Adm. Rep. 71-76. 7 pp. 
Short-term baiting programs have limited effectiveness. 

Mallette, R. D., and J. C. Borneman. 1966. First cooperative survey of the 
California condor. Calif. Fish Game 52(3):185-203. 
Thirty-eight condors estimated seen. 

Mallette, R. D., J. C. Borneman, F. C. Sibley, and R. S. Dalen. 1967. Second 
cooperative survey of the California condor. Calif. Fish Game 53(3): 132- 
145. 

Mallette, R. D., F. C. Sibley, W. D. Carrier, and J. C. Borneman. 1970. 
California condor surveys, 1969. Calif. Fish Game 56(3): 199-202. 
Fifty-three birds estimated seen. 

Mallette, R. D., and F. C. Sibley. 1971. California condor surveys, 1965-1969. 
Biol. Conserv. 3(2): 143-145. 
Summary of techniques and results. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 121 

Mallette, R. D., S. R. Wilbur, W. D. Carrier, and J. C. Borneman. 1972. 
California condor survey, 1970. Calif. Fish Game 58(l):67-68. 
Twenty-eight condors estimated seen. 

Mallette, R. D., S. R. Wilbur, W. D. Carrier, and J. C. Borneman. 1973. Cali- 
fornia condor survey, 1972. Calif. Fish Game 59(4):317-318. 
Thirty-six condors estimated seen. 

Mariana, N., Jr. 1968. Valley of the condors. Ranger Rick's Nat. Mag. 
2(2):15-19. 
Children's account of condor watching trip. 

May, J. 1972. Giant condor of California. Creative Educational Society, Inc., 
Mankato. 37 pp. 
Children's account, well done. 

May, R. H. 1941. A condor in the San Jacinto Mountains, California. Condor 
43(4):199. 
Possible sighting of a condor, 15 January 1941. 

McClure, H. E. 1950. Condors. News from the bird-banders 25(1):14. 

March 1949, up to 25 condors seen regularly east of Bakersfield, Kern County, 
California. 

McCoy, J. J. 1963. The fossil avifauna of Itchtucknee River, Florida. Auk 
80(3):335-351. 
One bone of Gymnogyps ampins. 

McGregor, R. C. 1899. Some summer birds of Palomar Mountains, from the 
notes of J. Maurice Hatch. Condor l(4):67-68. 
June 1897, San Diego County, four condors seen, reputedly breeding in area. 

McGregor, R. C. 1901. A list of the land birds of Santa Cruz County, Cali- 
fornia. Pac. Coast Avifauna 2. 22 pp. 
Apparently common in county, breeding in mountains north of Santa Cruz prior 
to 1900. 

McLain, R. B. 1898. The California vulture in Santa Barbara County, Cali- 
fornia. Auk 15(2):185. 
February 1898, condor collected at Lompoc. 

McMillan, I. 1953. Condors, politics and game management. Central Cali- 
fornia Sportsman, reprint from December issue. 3 pp. 
San Diego Zoo condor trapping controversy. 

McMillan, I. 1965a. An objection to feeding California condors. Defenders of 
Wildl. News40(2):45-46. 
Extra food not needed, unnatural to provide it. 

McMillan, I. 1965b. Shall we save the condor or build another dam? De- 
fenders Wildl. News 40(4):39-40. 
Against Sespe Water Project. 

McMillan, I. 1966. Poisoned condors. Defenders Wildl. News 41(2):1 15-116. 

Condors possibly poisoned by animal-control projects. 

McMillan, I. 1967. Game management vs. condor preservation. Defenders 
Wildl. News 42(4):365-369. 
Criticism of current condor management. 



122 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

McMillan, I. 1968. Man and the California condor. Dutton and Co., New 
York. 191 pp. 
Popular treatment of condor history and management. 

McMillan, I. 1970. Botching the condor program. Defenders Wildl. News 
45(l):95-98. 
Criticism of recent research and management. 

McMillan, I. 1971. The 1971 condor survey — a return to soundness. 
Defenders Wildl. News 46(4):386. 
Comments on annual survey. 

McMillan, I. 1975. Man and the condor. West. Tanager 42(2):l-2. 
General comments on the condor and its preservation. 

Meadows, C. 1933. California condor in San Diego County. Condor 35(6):234. 
Two condors seen near Mt. Palomar, 3 August 1933. 

Merriam, C. H. 1910. The dawn of the world. Arthur Clark Co., Cleveland. 
273 pp. 

Condor an important mythological character for the California Miwok Indians. 

Mertz, D. B. 1971. The mathematical demography of the California condor 
population. Am. Nat. 105(945):437-453. 
Mathematic analysis of condor population. 

Mery, S. 1965. He was there! Scissortail (Okla. Ornithol. Soc.) 15(3):57-58. 
Witness to accidental death of immature condor. 

Millard, R. 1958. Feathered giant of the skies. Coronet 43(5):144-146. 
San Diego Zoo condor trapping attempt. 

Miller, A. H. 1937. Biotic associations and life-zones in relation to Pleisto- 
cene birds of California. Condor 39(6):248-252. 
Vegetation and climatic change. 

Miller, A. H. 1942. A California condor bone from the coast of southern 
Oregon. Murrelet 23(3):77. 
Found with pre-caucasian Indian artifacts. 

Miller, A. H. 1951. [Notes and news section.] Condor 53(2): 103. 
Restrictions on oil and gas development in Sespe area. 

Miller, A. H. 1953a. More trouble for the California condor. Condor 55(1):47- 
48. 
San Diego Zoo permit to trap condors. 

Miller, A. H. 1953b. The case against trapping California condors. Audubon 
Mag. 55(6):261-262. 
Propagation and release to wild not feasible; trapping might disrupt breeding 
pairs; condor in a cage is not a real condor. 

Miller, A. H., and H. I. Fisher. 1938. The pterylosis of the California condor. 
Condor 40(6):248-256. 
Old condor skin taken apart to study feather placement. 

Miller, A. H., I. McMillan, and E. McMillan. 1964. The current status and 
welfare of the California condor. Sierra Club Bull. 49(9): 13-16. 
Summary of Miller et al. 1965a. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 123 

Miller, A. H., I. McMillan, and E. McMillan. 1965a. The current status and 
welfare of the California condor. Natl. Audubon Soc. Res. Rep. 6. 61 pp. 

Evaluation of changes in population since Koford 1953b. 

Miller, A. H., I. McMillan, and E. McMillan. 1965b. Hope for the California 
condor. Audubon Mag. 67(1):38-41. 
Summary of Miller et al. 1965a. 

Miller, L. H. 1910. The condor-like vultures of Rancho La Brea. Univ. Calif. 
Publ., Bull. Dep. Geol. 6(1):1-19. 
Gymnogyps and others in tar pits. 

Miller, L. H. 1911. Avifauna of the Pleistocene cave deposits of California. 
Univ. Calif., Bull. Dep. Geol. 6(16):385-400. 
Condor remains in Shasta County. 

Miller, L. H. 1912. Contribution to avian paleontology from the Pacific coast 
of North America. Univ. Calif., Bull. Dep. Geol. 7(5):61-115. 
Discussion of causes of extinction, summary of fossil record. 

Miller, L. H. 1925. The birds of Rancho La Brea. Carnegie Inst. Publ. 349:63- 
106. 
Summary of fossil record. 

Miller, L. H. 1927. Pleistocene fauna and flora. Bird remains. Science 
66(1702): 155-156. 
Condor from Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County, tarpits. 

Miller, L. H. 1931. The California condor in Nevada. Condor 33(1):32. 
One bone found in cave near Las Vegas. 

Miller, L. H. 1937. Feather studies of the California condor. Condor 
39(4):160-162. 

Feather molt determined from specimen. 

Miller, L. H. 1942. Succession in the cathartine dynasty. Condor 44(5):212- 
213. 

Concludes condor is a "senile" species. 

Miller, L. H. 1943. The Pleistocene birds of San Josecito Cavern, Mexico. 
Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 47(5):143-168. 
Remains of about three individual condors. 

Miller, L. H. 1957. Bird remains from an Oregon Indian midden. Condor 
59(l):59-63. 
Many bones from midden at The Dalles, Oregon. 

Miller, L. H. 1960a. Condor remains from Rampart Cave, Arizona. Condor 
62(1):70;62(4):298. 
Included are bones of a nestling bird. 

Miller, L. H. 1960b. Condors of Lake Mead. Natl. Parks Mag. 34(156):8-9. 
Rampart Cave bones. 

Miller, L. H. 1960c. On the history of the Cathartidae in North America. 
Novedades Columbianus l(5):232-235. 
General summary. 



124 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Miller, L. H. 1968. In search of the California condor. West. Tanager 
34(7):57-59, 64-65. 
Field notes 1910, Los Angeles and Ventura counties. 

Miller, L. H., and I. DeMay. 1942. The fossil birds of California. Univ. Calif. 
Publ. Zool. 47(4):47-142. 
First record of condor bones at McKittrick, Kern County, tarpits. 

Millikan, C. 1900. Capture of a condor in El Dorado Co., Cal. in 1854. Condor 
2(1):12-13. 

Autumn 1854, condor captured, eventually escaped. 

Morcom, G. F. 1887. Notes on the birds of southern California and south- 
western Arizona. Ridgway Ornithol. Club Bull. 2:36-57. 

Frank Stephens notes on condors in San Bernardino County, summer 1886. 

Morse, G. 1965. There soars the condor. Am. For. 71(2):22-24, 63. 
Condor vs. Sierra Madre Ridge Road proposal. 

Murphy, R. C. 1953. [Review of Koford 1953.] Audubon Mag. 55(5):232-233. 
Notes "the inescapable fact that no one can give a categorical answer to the ques- 
tion (how can we save the condor)." 

Nelson, E. W. 1921. Lower California resources. Memoirs Natl. Acad. Sci. 
16(1):1-194. 
Two condors collected in 1905; condor said to nest in Santa Rosa Canyon, Sierra 
San Pedro Martir (not confirmed). 

Netboy, A. 1976. Thunderbird. Am. For. 83(12):8-10. 
General summary of history and status. 

Newberry, J. S. 1857. Report of explorations and surveys to ascertain the 
most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi 
River to the Pacific Ocean. Vol. 6, Part 2, pages 73-110 in Report upon the 
zoology of the route. Beverly Tucker, Washington D.C. 

Seen "every day" in Sacramento Valley, "very few" in Klamath Basin, 1854. 

Nice, M. N. 1954. Problems of incubation periods in North American birds. 
Condor 56(4):173-197. 
Notes that condor incubation period has been erroneously reported as 29-31 days. 

Norris, J. P., Jr. 1926. A catalogue of sets of Accipitres' eggs in the collec- 
tion of Joseph Parker Norris, Jr. Oologist's Rec. 6(2):25-41. 
One condor egg collected 22 April 1900, Monterey County. 

North, A. W. 1910. Camp and camino in Lower California. Baker and Taylor 
Co., New York. 346 pp. 
January 1906, one condor seen, Sierra San Pedro Martir. 

Orr, P. C. 1968. Prehistory of Santa Rosa Island. Santa Barbara Museum of 
Natural History. 253 pp. 
Condor bones from Pleistocene. 

Orr, R. T. 1966. Will the condor survive? Pac. Discovery 19(6):20-21. 
Popular account. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 1 25 

Parker, H. 1965. The early Indians of Temecula. Paisano Press Inc., Balboa 
Island. 34 pp. 
San Diego Indians may sometimes have substituted condor for eagle in eagle-kill- 
ing ceremonies. 

Parmalee, P. W. 1969. California condor and other birds from Stanton Cave, 
Arizona. J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 5(4):204-206. 
At least three individuals represented by bones. 

Peale, T. R. 1957. Diary of Titian Ramsay Peale. Dawson's Book Store, Los 
Angeles. 85 pp. 
Condor seen in Umpqua River area, Oregon, 24 September 1841; several condors 
near Mt. Shasta, California, 5 October 1841; "numbers of condors" seen in north- 
ern Sacramento Valley, California, 3 October 1841. 

Peck, G. D. 1904. The California vulture in Douglas County, Oregon. 
Oologist 21(4):55. 
June 1903, several condors seen. 

Pemberton, J. R. 1910. Some bird notes from Ventura County, California. 
Condor 12(1):18-19. 
June-July 1909, several sightings of one to three condors. 

Pemberton, J. R., and H. W. Carriger. 1915. A partial list of the summer 
resident land birds of Monterey County, California. Condor 17(5):189-201. 
One condor seen, other reported, 27 May 1909. 

Pequegnat, W. E. 1945. A report upon the biota of the Santa Ana Moun- 
tains. J. Entomol. Zool. (Pomona College) 37(2):25-41. 
Several records of one to two condors, 1937-1940. 

Peterson, R. T. 1968. Vulture vigil on four continents. Audubon Mag. 
70(6):82-97. 
Condors in Sespe Condor Sanctuary area. 

Peterson, R. T., and J. Fisher. 1955. Wild America. Houghton Mifflin Co., 
Boston. 434 pp. 
Popular account of condor watching in Sespe area. 

Peyton, S. B. 1932. Visiting the condor country. Oologist 49(2):23-24. 

Five condors (two adults, three immatures) seen in Sespe Creek area, 23 March 
1929. 

Peyton, S. B. 1936. [Cooper Ornithological Club meeting notes.] Condor 
38(5):223. 
Condor reported captured at Tejon Ranch, later escaped. 

Peyton, S. B. 1937. [Cooper Ornithological Club meeting notes.) Condor 
39(2):95. 
December 1936, dead condor found in Squaw Flat area, Ventura County; two 
others reported killed by hail (see Rett 1938). 

Phillips, A., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964. The birds of Arizona. Univer- 
sity of Arizona Press, Tucson. 220 pp. 
Summary of Arizona records; probable last date 1924. 



126 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Phillips, J. C. 1926. An attempt to list the extinct and vanishing birds of the 
Western Hemisphere, with some notes on recent status, location of speci- 
mens, etc. Int. Ornithol. Congr. 6:503-534. 
J. Grinnell estimated 150 condors. 

Porter, R., and C. Walker. 1969. New World vultures. Birds of the World 
2(l):337-349. 
General life history. 

Poulsen, H. 1963. On the behavior of the South American condor (Vultur 
gryphus L.). Z. Tierpsychol. 20(4):468-473. 
Compares behavior of the two species of condor. 

Preston, J. 1908. An egg of the California vulture compared with those of 
other vultures. Oologist 25(4):57-58. 
Egg described, no specimen details. 

Pryor, A. 1965. The big battle over 39 birds. Calif. Farmer 223(6):20. 

Arguments in favor of the Sespe Water Project. 

Putnam, R. 1928. The letters of Roselle Putnam. Oreg. Hist. Q. 29(3):242- 
264. 
Umpqua River, Oregon, record of a dead condor, 1852. 

Pycraft, W. P. 1902. Contributions to the osteology of birds. Part 5, Falconi- 
formes. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1:277-320. 

Condor compared with other species. 

Ray, M. S. 1906. A-birding in an auto. Auk 23(4):400-418. 

June 1905, single condors seen in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties. 

Redington, A. P. 1899. Taking a condor's egg. Bull. Cooper Ornithol. Club 
1(4):75. 

Egg taken in Santa Ynez Mountains, Santa Barbara County, 17 April 1899; 
young condor allegedly shot in same area. 

Redington, P. G. 1920. A California condor seen near head of Deer Creek. 
California Fish Game 6(3):133. 
Condor landed in redwood tree, Tulare County, 1 1 May 1920. 

Reed, C. A. 1965. North American birds eggs (1904 edition reprinted). Dover 
Publications, New York. 372 pp. 
Description of bird and egg. 

Reed, G. W., and R. Gaines, eds. 1949. The journals, drawings and other 
papers of J. Goldsborough Bruff, April 2, 1849-July 20, 1851. Columbia 
Univ. Press, New York. 794 pp. 

One condor shot, Plumas or Tehama county, California, 20 October 1849; others 

seen in 1850. 

Rehfus, R. 1968. California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), the literature 
since 1900. U.S. Dep. Inter. Libr. Bibliography 7A. 16 pp. 

Listing of less obscure references. 

Reid, H. A. 1895. History of Pasadena. Pasadena History Co., Pasadena. 
675 pp. 

November 1878, condor killed near Pasadena; specimen not saved. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 127 



Rett, E. Z. 1938. Hailstorm fatal to California condors. Condor 40(5):225. 

October 1936, two condors in Santa Barbara County presumably killed by hail- 
stones. 

Rett, E. Z. 1946. Record of another condor death. Condor 48(4):182. 

May 1945, eastern San Luis Obispo County, death caused by osteomyolitis? 

Rhoads, S. N. 1892. The birds of southeastern Texas and southern Arizona 
observed during May, June and July 1891. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 
44:98-126. 
Possible condor shot in central Arizona. 

Rhoads, S. N. 1893. The birds observed in British Columbia and Washington 
during spring and summer 1892. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 45:21-65. 
Condor "used to be common" in British Columbia. 

Richmond, C. W. 1901. On the generic name of the California condor. Condor 
3(2}:49. 
Gymnogyps. name assigned in 1842; takes precedence over later terminology. 

Ridgway, R. 1880. Notes on the American vultures (Sarcorhamphidae), with 
special reference to their generic nomenclature. Bull. Nuttall Ornithol. 
Club 5(2):77-84. 
General comments and specimen measurements. 

Ridgway, R. 1885. Remarks on the California vulture (Pseudogryphus cali- 
fornianus). Auk 2(2):167-169. 
Specimen records and measurements. 

Rising, H. 1899. Capture of a California condor. Condor l(2):25-26. 

Adult condor killed, nestling captured and raised as pet, Santa Monica Moun- 
tains, Los Angeles County, 25 August 1898. 

Robertson, J. M. 1931. [Meeting notes, Cooper Ornithological Club.] Condor 
33(5):228. 
Twelve condors seen in southeastern Ventura County. 

Robinson, C. S. 1940. Notes on the California condor, collected on Los 
Padres National Forest, California. U.S. Forest Service, Santa Barbara. 
21pp. 

One of the most important summaries of information on the condor. 

Roof, J. 1969. The disappearing California condor. Desert Mag. 32(3):16-19. 
Popular status report. 

Ross, A. 1956. The fur hunters of the far west. University of Oklahoma 
Press, Norman. 304 pp. 
Page 137, probable record of condors in eastern Washington or Oregon in the fall 
of 1818. 

St. John, R. 1931. Condors on the Santa Barbara National Forest. California 
Fish Game 17(l):88-89. 
"Often seen," Santa Ynez and San Rafael mountains. 

Sani, M. 1975. County role crucial to condors. Visalia (California) Times- 
Delta, 22 September 1975: 1, 8A. 
Discusses importance of Tulare County as condor feeding area. 



128 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 



Schaeffer, C. E. 1951. Was the California condor known to the Blackfoot In- 
dians? J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 41(6):181-191. 
Indians of Montana and southern Canada report occasional visits by a very large, 
bald-headed bird. 

Sclater, P. L. 1866. Living California vulture received in London. Proc. Zool. 
Soc. London 13:366. 
Received from Dr. C. A. Canfield of Monterey, California. 

Scott, C. D. 1936a. Are condors extinct in Lower California? Condor 
38(l):41-42. 
Concludes they are extinct or nearly so. 

Scott, C. D. 1936b. Who killed the condor? Nat. Mag. 28(6):368-370. 
Gunfire probably main factor in decline. 

Scott, I. 1966. Interview with a dry condor. Scope 1(11):16. 
Humorous look at the Sespe Dam controversy. 

Scouler, J. 1905. Dr. John Scouler's journal of a voyage to northwest 
America. Oreg. Hist. Soc. Q. 6(2):276-287. 
September 1825, Fort Vancouver, Washington, condor collected. 

Seymour, G. 1971. California condor. Natl. Motorist 48(2):17-19. 
Popular summary. 

Sharp, C. S. 1907. The condor fifty years ago. Condor 9(5):160-161. 

Egg presumably laid by captive condor in Paris — doubtful, as no live condors are 
known to have been in France. 

Sharp, C. S. 1918. Concerning a condor. Oologist 35(1):8-11. 
San Diego County, 1901, an immature condor shot. 

Sharpies, R. P. 1897. The taking of a California condor's egg. Osprey 2(2):21. 

Egg taken, reportedly in Monterey County, 11 March 1897 (Willett 1933 says 
San Diego County). 

Shaw, E. W. 1970. California condor. Library of Congress Legislative Refer- 
ence Service SK-351, 70-127-EP. 10 pp. 
General summary, considerable misinformation. 

Sheldon, H. H. 1939. What price condor? Field and Stream 44(5):22-23, 61- 
62. 

Popular anti-condor article, concludes that condor has outlived its usefulness. 

Shields, A. M. 1895. Nesting of the California vulture. Nidiologist 2(11):148- 
150. 
Condor egg collected, 25 April 1895, location uncertain. 

Shufeldt, R. W. 1881. The claw on the index digit of the Cathartidae. Am. 
Nat. 15(1 1):906-908. 

New World vultures have claw; Old World vultures do not. 

Shufeldt, R. W. 1883. Osteology of the Cathartidae. Annu. Rep., U.S. Geol. 
Geograph. Surv. 12(l):727-786. 
Detailed comparisons. 

Sibley, C. G. 1952. The birds of the south San Francisco Bay region. 42 pp. 
[Copy at Oakland (California) Public Library.] 

Summary of records; not uncommon prior to 1880, now possible rare vagrant. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 129 



Sibley, F. C. 1969. Effects of the Sespe Creek Project on the California 
condor. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland. 19 pp. 
Effects of noise and disturbances on condors. 

Sibley, F. C. 1970. Annual nesting of the California condor. Paper presented 
at annual meeting, Cooper Ornithological Society, Fort Collins, Colorado, 
20 June 1970. 3 pp. 
One nest cliff fledged condors in four consecutive years. 

Sibley, F. C, R. D. Mallette, J. C. Borneman, and R. S. Dalen. 1968. Third 
cooperative survey of the California condor. Calif. Fish Game 54(4):297- 
303. 
Minimum of 46 condors estimated. 

Sibley, F. C, R. D. Mallette, J. C. Borneman, and R. S. Dalen. 1969. Cali- 
fornia condor surveys, 1968. Calif. Fish Game 55(4):298-306. 
Minimum of 52 condors estimated. 

Siddon, D. 1967. Perched on the brink of oblivion. Los Angeles Times, West 
Magazine, 5 March:27-29. 
Popular account of current situation. 
Siebert, M. 1941. A week with the California condor. Field Ornithol. 3(1-2): 
3-6. 
March 1940, at least 10 condors seen in Sespe area. 

Silverman, M. 1951. The fabulous condor's last stand. Saturday Evening 
Post223(41):36, 148-150. 
Establishing Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary, and later conservation efforts. 

Simon, N., and P. Geroudet. 1970. Last survivors. World Publishing Co., 
New York. 275 pp. 
Pages 57-61, summary of life history and conservation. 

Skirm, J. 1884. List of birds of Santa Cruz, Cal. Ornithol. and Oologist 
9(12):149-150. 
Condors "common." 

Smith, D. 1966. Condors and guns. Defenders Wildl. News 41(4):320-322. 
Deer hunting seen as threat to condors. 

Smith, D., and R. Easton. 1964. California condor, vanishing American. 
McNally and Loftin, Santa Barbara. Ill pp. 
Popular life history and conservation. 

Smith, D., and R. Easton. 1965a. The condor controversy: an on-the-spot 
report. Defenders Wildl. News 40(4):40-42. 
Sespe Water Project vs. condors. 

Smith, D., and R. Easton. 1965b. The condor controversy. Westways 
57(7):20-21. 
Sespe Water Project vs. condors. 

Smith, D., and R. Easton. 1965c. The condor controversy. Anim. Life 40:22- 
23. 
Sespe Water Project vs. condors. 



130 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Smith, F. J. 1916. Occurrence of the condor in Humboldt County. Condor 
18(5):205. 
Once "plentiful" in northwestern California. 

Sparkman, P. S. 1908. The culture of the Luiseno Indians. Univ. Calif. Publ. 
Archeol. Ethnol. 8(4):187-234. 
Condor feathers used for ceremonial dress, San Diego County. 

Speer, L. 1971. Can this bird survive? Dodge News Mag. 36(2):3-5. 
Popular account of conservation efforts. 

Stager, K. 1964. The role of olfaction in food location by the turkey vulture 
(Cathartes aura). Los Ang. Cty. Mus. Contrib. Sci. 81:1-63. 
"No evidence . . . that olfaction plays more than a minor role, if any, in food 
location by . . . Gymnogyps." 

Stephens, F. 1895. Notes on the California vulture. Auk 12(l):81-82. 
Kern County, 10 October 1894, 26 condors at a horse carcass. 

Stephens, F. 1899. Lassoing a California vulture. Bull. Cooper Ornithol. 
Club 1(5):88. 
San Diego County, 24 May 1899, one condor captured. 

Stephens, F. 1919. An annotated list of the birds of San Diego County, Cali- 
fornia. Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 3(2): 1-40. 
Formerly common, once again increasing. 

Stephenson, T. 1948. The shadows of Old Saddleback. Fine Arts Press, 
Orange, Calif. 207 pp. 

Pages 127-132, condor presumably nesting in Santa Ana Mountains. 

Stewart, G. W. 1908. The condor in the San Joaquin Valley. Condor 
10(3):130. 
"Formerly not uncommon," recent hearsay records. 

Stillman, J. D. B. 1967. The gold rush letters. Lewis Osborne, Palo Alto. 

75 pp. 
Adult condor shot on Sacramento River in Colusa County, 19 September 1849. 

Stone, W. 1905. On a collection of birds and mammals from the Colorado 
Delta, Lower California. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 57:676-690. 
One condor seen, 1905. 

Storer, J. H. 1948. The flight of birds. Cranbrook Inst. Sci. Bull. 28. 94 pp. 

Pages 44-45 and 64-71, aerodynamics of condor wing. 

Streator, C. P. 1886. List of birds observed in the vicinity of Santa Barbara, 
Cal, during the year 1885. Ornithol. and Oologist 1 1(5):66-67. 
Condor occasionally seen. 

Streator, C. P. 1888. Notes on the California condor. Ornithol. and Oologist 

13(2):30. 
Suggests (no evidence) many condors killed by poisons. 

Sumner, L. 1950. Condors observed from airplane. Condor 52(3): 133. 
Two condors observed, Los Angeles County. 

Sumner, L., and J. S. Dixon. 1953. Birds and mammals of the Sierra Nevada. 
Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 484 pp. 

Compilation of records in and near Sequoia National Park. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR. 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 131 



Sutter, J. 1972. Vanishing species. Buffalo (New York) Courier-Express, 19 
March 1972, Magazine section:12-13. 
General account of condor status. 

Swann, H. K. 1924. Monograph of the birds of prey. Vol. 1, Part 1. Weldon 
and Wesley, London. 51 pp. 
Describes condor egg from Baja California. 

Swarth, H. S. 1914. A distributional list of the birds of Arizona. Pac. Coast 
Avifauna 10. 133 pp. 

Considers all Arizona records doubtful. 

Swarth, H. S. 1934. In memorium: George Frean Morcom, March 16, 1845- 
March 25, 1932. Condor 36(l):16-24. 
Two condor eggs in Morcom collection. 

Swift, L. W. 1945. Our national forests as a home for wildlife. Audubon Mag. 
47(5):288-295. 
Brief popular treatment of condor. 

Taylor, A. S. 1855. Note on the great vulture of California. Zoologist 
13:4632-4635. 
One of earliest comprehensive accounts; much misinformation. 

Taylor, A. S. 1859a. The egg and young of the California condor. Hutching's 
Calif. Mag. 3(12):537-540. 
First published description of nest, egg and chick. 

Taylor, A. S. 1859b. The great condor of California. Hutching's Calif. Mag. 
3(12):540-543, 4(l):17-22, 4(2):61-64. 
Basis of most early bird book accounts, although full of hearsay and obvious mis- 
information. 

Taylor, B. 1949. Eldorado, or adventures in the path of empire. Alfred A. 
Knopf, New York. 375 pp. 
September 1849, near Livermore (Alameda County), both buzzards and "moun- 
tain vultures" (condors?) seen. 

Taylor, H. R. 1893. Killed with small shot. Nidiologist 1(1):6. 
Condor killed in San Benito County. 

Taylor, H. R. 1894. After condor's eggs. Nidiologist 1(6):109. 
Unsuccessful egg hunt. 

Taylor, H. R. 1895a. Habits of the California condor. Nidiologist 2(6):73-79. 
Compilation of various observers' information. 

Taylor, H. R. 1895b. Collecting a condor's egg. Nidiologist 2(7):88-89. 
May 1889, condor egg from San Luis Obispo County. 

Taylor, H. R. 1895c. [Open letter to W. F. Webb.] Nidiologist 2(7): 100. 

Webb's catalogue lists condor eggs at $25; Taylor offers him $250 for three or 
less! 

Taylor, H. R. 1895d. [Editorial notes.] Nidiologist 2(9):130. 
More on Webb's catalogue. 

Taylor, H. R. 1895e. Wholesale frauds. Nidiologist 2(11): 150. 
Warns that some may try to sell swan's eggs for condor eggs. 



132 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Taylor, H. R. 1985f. On the eggs of the California vulture. Nidiologist 
3(4-5):42. 
Nine eggs described. 

Taylor, H. R. 1898. Early nidification of California vulture. Osprey 3(2):29. 
March 1898, two eggs collected. 

Test, F. H. 1941. An afternoon with California condors. Indiana Audubon 
Year Book 19:24-28. 

April 1940, 17 condors seen in mountains near Fillmore. 

Todd, F. S. 1968. The thunderbird. Zoo View 3(4):3-5. 

Popular account of captive condor, and of current management. 

Todd, F. S. 1974. Maturation and behavior of the California condor at the 
Los Angeles Zoo. Int. Zoo Yearb. 14:145-147. 
Behavior of a captive condor. 

Todd, F. S. 1975. The tenacious thunderbirds. Wildlife 17(1):8-13. 
Popular summary of status and management. 

Todd, F. S., and N. B. Gale. 1970. Further notes on the California condor at 
Los Angeles Zoo. Int. Zoo Yearb. 10:15-17. 
Plumage changes of captive immature condor. 

Tolmie, W. F. 1963. William Fraser Tolmie, physician and fur trader. Mit- 
chell Press Ltd., British Columbia. 413 pp. 

Ft. McLoughlin, British Columbia, 24 November 1834, probable record of a 
condor. 

Torrey, B. 1913. Field-days in California. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 
234 pp. 

Pages 93-99, popular account of seeing a condor in Los Angeles County. 

Townsend, C. H. 1887. Field-notes on the mammals, birds and reptiles of 
northern California. Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 10:159-241. 
Once common in northern California, records given for Tehama County prior to 
1884. 

Townsend, J. K. 1848. Popular monograph on the accipitrine birds of N. A. — 
No. II, Californian vulture. Lit. Rec. and J. Linnean Assoc, Penn. Coll. 
4(12):265-272. 
Oregon, 1835, condors seen regularly; one killed. 

Truslow, F. K. 1974. How I photographed America's largest bird. Natl. 
Wildl. 12(2):35-39. 
Picture story. 

Turner, A. W. 1973. Vultures. David McKay Co., Inc., New York. 95 pp. 

Elementary coverage of life history of California condor and other vultures. 

Tyler, J. G. 1913. Some birds of the Fresno district, California. Pac. Coast 
Avifauna 9. 114 pp. 
Reported in 1900 and 1911. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1969. A detailed report on the Sespe Creek 
Project. Portland, Oregon. 39 pp. 

Probable effects on condor and other wildlife. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 133 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1973. Threatened wildlife of the United 
States. Resour. Publ. 114. 289 pp. 
Outline of life history and management. 

U.S. National Park Service. 1974. Threatened wildlife of the Western Re- 
gion. San Francisco. 68 pp. 
Review of status within National Park System. 

United Water Conservation District. 1965a. The California condor manage- 
ment and protection program. Santa Paula, California. 15 pp. 

Alternatives to National Audubon Society program for condor protection, in rela- 
tion to proposed Sespe Water Project. 

United Water Conservation District. 1965b. Audubon Society vs. United 
Water, just who is fighting who for what? United Water News 6(l):2-3. 
Sespe Water Project controversy. 

Van Denburgh, J. 1898. Birds observed in central California in the summer 
of 1893. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 50:206-218. 

Owens Valley, 19 July 1893, one condor seen. 

Van Denburgh, J. 1899. Notes on some birds of Santa Clara County, Cali- 
fornia. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 38(160):157-180. 
Four condors near Los Gatos, no date given. 

Vaughan, T. 1971. Russian museums: a unique trip by rail. West. Mus. Q. 
7(3):l-7. 
Leningrad museum has Indian capes made of condor feathers, obtained from Fort 
Ross, Sonoma County, California. 

Verner, J. 1976. An appraisal of the continued involvement of Forest Service 
research in the California condor recovery program. U.S. Forest Service, 
Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley. 
28 pp. 

Computer modeling of condor population, concludes that adult survival rate has 
been about 95%, and immature survival rate 85%. Recommendations for future 
research included in report. 

Vincent, J. 1966. Red data book. Vol. 2 — Aves. Internation Union for Con- 
servation of Nature and Natural Resources. Looseleaf, coded but un- 
numbered. 
Outline of current status and management. 

Wallace, W. J., and D. W. Lathrap. 1959. Ceremonial bird burials in San 
Francisco Bay shellmounds. Am. Antiq. 25(2):262-264. 
Presence of entire condor skeleton suggests purposeful burial. 

Watson, B. 1965. Conservation notes. West. Tanager 31(7):65, 68. 

Plans to organize a "condor patrol" to help with law enforcement and education. 

Webb, J. J. 1935. The condor and its nesting site. Gull 17(10):l-2. 
"Nest" (more likely roost) seen in Sespe Creek area, 14 July 1935. 

Webb, J. J. 1937. California condor and other birds of Sespe Canyon. Gull 
19(8):l-3. 
Eight condors seen, 3 May 1937. 



134 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Webb, J. J. 1939. Inquisitiveness of California condor, Pacific horned owl, 
and golden eagle. Gull 21(4):1. 
Condors appear to intentionally approach people. 

Westwood, R. W. 1953. Contents noted. Nat. Mag. 46(6):287. 
Trapping proposal by San Diego Zoo. 

Wetmore, A. 1931a. The California condor in New Mexico. Condor 33(2):76- 

77. 
Two bones in cave deposits. 

Wetmore, A. 1931b. The avifauna of the Pleistocene in Florida. Smithson. 
Misc. Coll. 85(2):1-41. 
Condor bones found in two areas. 

Wetmore, A. 1931c. The Pleistocene avifauna of Florida. Proc. Int. Ornithol. 
Congr. 7:479-483. 
Condor bones. 

Wetmore, A. 1932. Additional records of birds from cavern deposits in New 
Mexico. Condor 34(3):141-142. 
Additional condor bones found. 

Wetmore, A. 1933. The eagle, king of birds, and his kin. Natl. Geogr. Mag. 
64(l):43-95. 
General comments on the condor. 

Wetmore, A. 1956. A check-list of the fossil and prehistoric birds of North 
America and the West Indies. Smithson. Misc. Coll. 131(5):1-105. 
Listing of fossil locations. 

Wetmore, A. 1959. Birds of the Pleistocene in North America. Smithson. 
Misc. Coll. 138(4):l-24. 
General comments on prehistoric distribution. 

Wetmore, A., and H. Friedmann. 1933. The California condor in Texas. 
Condor 35(l):37-38. 
At least three condors represented in cave deposits, including one fledgling. 

Whitaker, G. B. 1918. Capturing the great American condor. Overland 
Monthly 71(5):390-392. 

Exciting account of taking condor egg and nestlings. 

White, L. T., Jr. 1940. Changes in the popular concept of "California." Calif. 
Hist. Soc. Q. 19(3):219-224. 
Suggests the name "California" may have been derived from Persian Kar-i-farn 
where the griffon vultures lived, because the namers saw condors (griffons). 

Wilbur, M. E., ed. 1941. A pioneer at Sutter's Fort, 1846-1850. The adven- 
tures of Heinrich Lienhard. The Calafia Society, Los Angeles. 291 pp. 
Condors seen along Sacramento River. 

Wilbur, S. R. 1971. The condor's place. West. Tanager 37(11): 1-2. 

Philosophy of condor preservation. 

Wilbur, S. R. 1972. The food resources of the California condor. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 18 pp. 
Food as related to distribution and production. 



THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR, 1966-76: A LOOK AT ITS PAST AND FUTURE 135 

Wilbur, S. R. 1973. The California condor in the Pacific Northwest. Auk 
90(1):196-198. 

Distribution, numbers, and evaluation of disappearance. 

Wilbur, S. R. 1974a. California condor specimens in collections. Wilson Bull. 
86(l):71-72. 
One hundred eighty-five skins, 51 skeletons, 55 eggs. 

Wilbur, S. R. 1974b. Future of the condor: recovery or extinction? Field 
Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 45(9):3-6. 
Current status. 

Wilbur, S. R. 1975a. California condor plumage and molt as field study aids. 
Calif. Fish Game 61(3):144-148. 
Plumage characteristics of limited value in aging condors or separating indi- 
viduals in the field. 

Wilbur, S. R. 1975b. Recovery planning for the California condor. Outdoor 
Calif. 36(4):10-11. 
Description of "recovery planning" process, including a statement of objectives 
of the California Condor Recovery Plan. 

Wilbur, S. R. 1976a. Condor: a doomed species? Natl. Parks Conserv. Mag. 
50(2):17-19. 
Popular update of condor status and preservation efforts. 

Wilbur, S. R. 1976b. Status of the California condor, 1972-1975. Am. Birds 
30(4):789-790. 
Distribution similar to previous years, production averaging less than 2 per year, 
and numbers declining to less than 50 total. 

Wilbur, S. R. 1976c. Are there condors in our future? Audubon Imprint 
(Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society) 1(2): 1-2, 5. 
Captive propagation of condors discussed. 

Wilbur, S. R., and J. C. Borneman. 1972. Copulation by California condors. 
Auk89(2):444-445. 
Copulation described. 

Wilbur, S. R., W. D. Carrier, J. C. Borneman, and R. D. Mallette. 1972. Dis- 
tribution and numbers of the California condor, 1966-1971. Am. Birds 
26(5):819-823. 
Summary of status to 1971. 

Wilbur, S. R., W. D. Carrier, and J. C. Borneman. 1974. Supplemental feed- 
ing program for California condors. J. Wildl. Manage. 38(2):343-346. 
Results of supplemental feeding: condors fed regularly, as did other scavengers. 

Wilcox, A. 1901. California vulture. Am. Ornithol. 1(9): 164-168. 
General comments, collection records. 

Wilcox, A. 1903. The California vulture. West. Field 2(4):217-219. 
General comments, collection records. 

Willett, G. 1908. Summer birds of the upper Salinas Valley and adjacent 
foothills. Condor 10(4): 137- 139. 
Seen 14 years ago, but not recently. 



136 NORTH AMERICAN FAUNA 72 

Willett, G. 1912. Birds of the Pacific slope of southern California. Pac. Coast 
Avifauna 7:1-122. 
Summary of egg collection data; condor considered "tolerably common." 

Willett, G. 1931. The condor in San Benito County, California. Condor 
33(1):31. 
Egg collected, 6 April 1898; condors common in early 1880's, gone by 1900. 

Willett, G. 1933. Revised list of birds of southwestern California. Pac. Coast 
Avifauna 21. 204 pp. 
"No doubt that the condor has decreased in numbers during the last fifteen or 
twenty years." 

Williams, Mrs. Will. 1950. [Letter regarding condors in Kern County, Cali- 
fornia.] News from the Bird-banders 25(4):50. 
April 1950, 2 condors seen near Granite Station; hearsay report of 42 condors in 
area during ground squirrel poisoning in April 1949. 

Wilson, A. V. 1928. Condor caught in San Joaquin Valley. Condor 30(5): 159- 
160. 
Kern County, 1926, condor chased by car, caught, let go. 

Wolfe, B. 1971. The California condor: Conservancy helps protect bird fac- 
ing extinction. Nat. Conserv. News 21(4):6-7. 
Land acquisition near condor nest. 

Wolfe, L. R. 1938. Eggs of the Falconiformes. Oologist's Rec. 18(1):2-10. 

One condor egg laid in captivity. 

Woods, R. S. 1929. Field identification of vultures. Auk 36(3):386. 
Condor identification by color and flight pattern. 

Wyman, L. E. 1924. A California condor in captivity. Condor 26(4): 153. 

At Selig Zoo, Los Angeles. 

Young, B., and J. Young. 1965. Sovereign of California skies. Desert 
28(4):8-9. 
Popular account of life history and status. 

Zimmerman, D. R. 1975. To save a bird in peril. Coward, McCann and 
Geoghegan, Inc., New York. 286 pp. 
Pages 174-180, description of supplemental feeding programs for California 
condors and other raptors. 



OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE LIBRARY 

i dQ ^n-72 docus 

The California condor 1 966-7/ Wilbur ■ Sa 




3 5043 00319 3538 



DATE DUE 



APR 2 1 1998 



Demco, Inc. 38-293 



Use of trade names does not imply U.S. Government endorsement of commercial 
products. 



As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the 
Interi ir has resp msibility for most of our nationally owned public 
lands and natural res mrces. This includes fostering the wisest use of 
our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserv- 
ing the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and 
historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through out- 
door recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral 
res 'imrs and works to assure that their development is in the best 
interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsi- 
bility fir American Indian reservation communities and for pe >ple who 
live in island territories under U.S. administration. 




UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

EDITORIAL OFFICE 

AYLESWORTH HALL. CSU 

FORT COLLINS. COLORADO 80523 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 



INT 423 




Mailing lists are computerized. Please return address label with change of address.