ebook img

the cougar in the santa ana mountain range, california PDF

102 Pages·2004·5.56 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview the cougar in the santa ana mountain range, california

THE COUGAR IN THE SANTA ANA MOUNTAIN RANGE, CALIFORNIA Paul Beier and Reginald H. Barrett Department ofForestry and Resource Management, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley CA Pinal Report ORANGE COUNTY COOPERATIVE MOUNTAIN LION STUDY June 1 1993 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 Acknowledgments '" '" 4 BACKGROUND, STUDY AREA, METHODS .5 Background , 5 Study Area : 6 Methods 8 CHAPTER 1. HOME RANGES AND HABITAT USE .11 Home ranges 11 Overlap among home ranges 13 Habitat use 13 CHAPTER 2. POPULATION DENSITY AND STRUCTURE :.16 CHAPTER 3. DISTRIBUTION AND TRAVEL CORRIDORS 22 Cougar Habitat in the Santa Ana Mountain Range : 22 Cougar Use ofCounty Parks East of1-5 22 Cougar Use ofthe San Joaquin Hills 23 Wildlife corridors 24 Factors influencing corridor suitability for cougars 24 The most critical link: from the Palomar Range to the Santa Ana Mountain Range 26 Chino Hills State Park to Trabuco Ranger District 30 O'Neill-Arroyo Trabuco-Wagon Wheel Regional Parks to the Protected Core Area 33 Weir Canyon-Santiago Oaks-IrvineRegional Parks to the Protected Core Area 35 Limestone-Whiting Regional Parks to the Protected Core Area 35 Rancho Mission Viejo Conservancy to the Protected Core Area 37 CHAPTER 4. POPULATIONDYNAMICS 38 Reproductive activity and litter sizes 38 Juvenile survivorship 40 Adult survivorship 42 Mortality factors 43 Disease 43 Intraspecific strife 45 An unusual injury 46 Highway mortality and injuries 47 Illegal take and harassment 51 Depredation 52 Synthesis: a population model 53 CHAPTER 5. UTILITY OF TRACK SURVEYS '" 56 Surveys to detect cougar presence 56 Most cougar sightings are bogus and do not need validating 56 When a track survey for presence may be warranted 57 Using tracks to verify a reported sighting 58 Surveys to monitor population trend 59 CHAPTER 6. ACTIVITY PATTERNS 61 Daily activity patterns 61 Hunting 62 Killing and/or feeding on prey 62 Seasonal changes in distance moved per day 63 Dispersal movements ofjuveniles '" '" '" 64 Dispersal ofM8 66 Dispersal ofM10 69 Dispersal ofM3 71 Dispersal ofM7 72 Dispersal ofM12 73 Dispersal ofM11 75 Dispersal ofF17 77. Dispersal ofM5 : 78 Dispersal ofM6 79 CHAPTER 7. PREY RELATIONSHIPS 81 Prey use based on prey remains : 81 Prey use based on cougar scats 83 Deer density estimates and herd composition 84 Estimation ofdeer harvest rate and cougar kill rate on deer 86 Inconsistency among our estimates 87 CHAPTER 8. IMPACT OF URBAN GROWTH 88 Habitat loss and fragmentation 88 Six freeways threaten to fragment habitat 88 CHAPTER 9. COUGAR-HUMAN ENCOUNTERS 90 A history ofcougar-human encounters 90 The habituation hypothesis 90 The 'repeat offender' hypothesis 91 Use ofgarbage and artificial food sources 91 Aversive conditioning was infeasible '" 92 Public warnings 92 Cougar use ofareas on the urban fringe 93 Cougars in parks and near wilderness trails 95 CHAPTER 10. PUBLIC EDUCATION 97 LITERATlJRE CITED 99 GLOSSARY 103 APPENDICES: PUBLICATIONS FROM THIS STUDy 104 INTRODUCTION 6. Activity patterns. Document daily and seasonal activity patterns for male and female This report summarizes cougar (mountain lion, cougars. Document movements of individual Felis concolor) research in Orange Countyfrom cougars. April I 1988 through February I 1993. This research was pursued under interagency 7. frey relationships. Document cougar prey agreements FG7510 and FOO217 between the relationships based on field surveys including California Department of Fish and Game and deer herd composition surveys and examination the University of California at Berkeley, and ofcougar-killed prey carcasses. Agreements D87-232 and FG0233 between the County of Orange and the California 8. Impact of urban growth. Determine the Department of Fish and Game. The following actual and potential impacts of expanding headings encompass the 18 objectives explicitly urban development on cougar habitat. Provide set forth in the contracts. The language information applicable to proposed highway following each heading is taken directly from projects. the objectives contained in the contracts. The 10 chapters in this report follow these same 9. Cougar-human encounters. Document headings. factors which may h~lp explain' the recent increase in cougar-human encounters. I. Home ranges and habitat use. Document Document the r~ction of collared cougars to home range sizes for male and female cougars. humans and to artificial food sources including Document habitat use in the Santa Ana and garbage. Determine ifsuch reactions vary with Santa Margaritamountain ranges. changes in cougardensity, age ofcougar, orthe reproductive status of the cougar. Test the 2. Population density and structure. Determine feasibility of conditioning cougars to avoid the density of cougars, and the sex and age humans by removing artificial food sources and class structure ofthecougarpopulation. other practical methods. Monitor trends in cougar use of areas on the fringes of 3. Distribution and travel corridors. Document development. cougar use ofexisting County Parks, including habitat use within these Parks, and travel 10. Public education. Prepare a slide corridors between Parks. Investigate reports of presentation for use in park Visitor Centers, to cougar sightings in the San Joaquin Hills and include: study results, natural history and social Laguna Greenbelt areas. Evaluate and behavior of cougars, information on document the actual and potential movement conservation of cougars, and warnings of the corridors necessary to insure the integrity ofthe potential dangers inherent in having cougars as ,cougarpopulation. partofthe wilderness. 4. Population dynamics. Document This report follows this 10-point reproductive activity, litter SlZeS, and outline. We are also providing to the County recruitment intothe population. and the Department data files of cougar locations for use in planning and management 5. Utility oftrack surveys. Evaluate the validity activities. oftrack survey information. 3 Acknowledgments California State University at Fullerton performed the determination ofprey remains in We gratefully acknowledge the cougar scats. financial support ofthe California Department of Fish and Game, and of the County of For gracious access to land holdings, Orange, California. The Department of Fish we thank Boy Scouts of America, California and Game also supplied capture specialists, State Parks, FordAerospace, Hon Development vehicles, telemetry equipment, training in Company, Irvine Company, Metropolitan animal handling, and air services. Terry Water District, National Audubon Society, Mansfield. Eric Loft, and Bill Clark of the Orange County, Rancho Mission Viejo, Rancho Department were especially important in Santa Margarita, Riverside County, San Diego insuring continued support for this project. We County, San Diego State University, The also thank CDFG employees in Region 5: Rich Nature Conservancy, TRW Corporation, US Anthes, Esther Burkett, Jim Davis, John Fallon, Forest Service, US Marine Corps Base Camp Greg Gerstenberg, Cheryl Heffley, Larry Pendleton, and US Naval Weapons Station Henson, Lisa Kramer, Art Lawrence, Marty Fallbrook. Camp Pendleton was especially Matorini, John Massey, Larry Sitton, Ralph helpful in arranging access, loaning ecjuipment, . Sugg, JeffVeal, Ken Walton, Jan Yost, and Al sharing data, and in niany other ways..Rancho Zamudio. The County ofOrange assisted with Mission Viejo generously provided several access to public and private lands and kinds of support, including living space fOJ;" supportedthe project in many other ways, most volunteer field workers. notably in allowing Donna Krucki flexibility in her work schedule at Caspers Wilderness Park We offer heartfelt thanks to many so that she could assist us in field work. We others who helped in ways too numerous to especially thank County employees Stan mention, among them Jon Atwood, Greg Bengtson, Bruce Buchman, Donna Krucki, Al Ballmer, Cameron Barrows, Celia Beier, Macias, Gary Madeiros, Tim Miller, Tim Michelle Beier, Gary Bell, Pete Bloom, David Neely, CathyNowak, and Chuck Thornberg. Bontrager, Dave Boyer, Dave Bramlet, Phil Brylski, Slader Buck, Ray Chandos, Charlotte Paul Beier, Allan Brody, Jeff Brent, Clarke, Steve Coontz, Pete de Simone, Sandy David Choate, Pete de Simone, Karen Drewe, de Simone, Paul Edelman, Mike Evans, Donna Krucki, W. Douglas Padley, Tracy Merrillee Fellows, Scott Ferguson, Em Fermin, Tennant, and DugginsWroe carried outmost of Phil Feyerabend, Dave Fjelline, Robert Frazer, the field work. Dug Wroe's capture skills and Amy Greyson, Maribeth Gustafson, Loren Dave Choate's careful field work were critical Hays, Jean Jenks, David Kossack, Sharon to our success. JeffHornacek, Jack Williams, Lockhart, Steve Loe, Karlin Marsh, Sherrie and Bob Chipman generously loaned their Meddick, Lori Merkle, Claudia Meuller, Sara air,planes and services as pilots. Miller, Pat Mock, Donna O'Neill, Richard O'Neill, Richard Orisio, Marie Patterson, Special thanks go to Doug Padley and Spence Porter, Fred Roberts, Gordon Ruser, Joel Weintraub. Padley monitored radio-tagged Larry Salata, Joel Shows, Connie Spenger, cougars for the County of Orange in 1986-87 Maryann van Drielen, Lee Waian, Ken Weaver, and for US Marine Corps Base Camp Susan Wroe, and CliffWylie. We apologize to Pendleton in 1987-1989; his data are included these people for so brief a mention and to the inthis report. He also workedas a volunteer on many others whose names we failed to list. this study, and shared data from his 1990-1991 work on mule deer. Joel Weintraub of 4 BACKGROUND, STUDY AREA, Anderson (1983) and Lindzey (1987); METHODS Anderson et al. (1992) reference most of the more recent literature. Excluding a half-dozen Background studies of trends in cougar numbers and depredation incidents, only 3 intensive studies The cougar (Felis concolor) is also of cougar ecology were carried out in known by the names mountain lion, puma, and California prior to the present study. Sitton panther. Cougars have the broadest and Wallen (1976) radio-tagged 14 cougars and distribution ofany terrestrial mammal native to ear-tagged 2 cubs in a 2-ycilr study in southern the New World, ranging from southern Yukon Monterey County. Hopkins (1981, 1989) to southern SouthAmerica (Lindzey 1987:657). radio-tagged and studied cougars in the Mount Once native to all of the contiguous United Hamilton area (Santa Clara County and States, cougars now occupy less than half of adjacent areas) during 1978-1988. Neal et al. this historic range, mainly west of the 100th (1986) reported on home range use and density Meridian (Anderson 1983). The main cause of in the North Kings River area (west central this range contraction was persecution of SierraNevada) during 1983-1985. cougars, which began with European colonization and ended as each state ended its Until 1986, cougar studies.in southern bounty system during 1958-1970. Cougars California were limited to track surveys. In were present as recently as 1950-1976 in that year the National Audubon Society txtgan several states where the species is now extinct, plans for a radio-telemetry study centered on including Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Starr Ranch Sanctuary. In November 1986, Tennessee, and West Virginia (Currier 1978, CDFG radio-tagged 2 adult female cougars Anderson 1983:80-83). Since the end of the near Caspers Park andtook the lead in planning bounty system, cougars have increased in most a larger study. CDFG and County of Orange western states (Smith 1989). However, there agreed to jointly fund the study, and in are local declines in some areas due to habitat February 1988, the University of California loss and fragmentation. These same processes signed a contract to carry out the project; field may prevent cougars from recolonizing the work began in April 1988. Meanwhile, Camp eastern United States. There is no statistically Pendletonhad begun a study using radio-tagged sound and precise estimate oftotal numbers of cougars in summer 1987. Thetwo studies were cougars for any entire state. The cougar's closely coordinated. In late 1989 the Camp elusive habits and low density make any such Pendleton study terminated and we took over estimate prohibitively expensive. The monitoring ofthose animals. This report treats California population was estimated at 4100 data from both study sites as a single data set. 5700 animals in 1984 (Mansfield 1986), a number far larger than for any other U.S. state The results ofthe present study appear , or Canadian province (Smith 1989). in several documents in additiontothis report: • Much of the Camp Pendleton data were Hornocker (1969, 1970) carried outthe summarized in Padley's (1990) Master's first intensive study on the ecology ofcougars, thesis. following individually marked animals over • Padley (in press) reports on social time and observing population processes in a interactions among female cougars in a well-defined study area. Virtually all our paper submittedto Journal ofMammalogy. knowledge ofcougar ecology has been obtained • Beier (1993) simulated the population since 1970. The best summaries of the dynamics of this cougar population and scientific literature on cougars are provided by demonstrated the critical importance of 5 preserving corridors for wildlife movement. The 1988 contract defined the original This paper appears as Appendix 1 in this study area as "Rancho Mission Viejo, Rancho report. Santa Margarita, Coto de Caza., Starr Ranch • Beier (1991, 1992) presented the historical Sanctuary, Ronald Caspers Wilderness Park, record of cougar attacks on humans in the O'Neill Regional Park, and Wagon Wheel United States and Canada. These papers Canyon Regional Park." This area is only 2 2 are included as Appendix 2 and Appendix about 260 km (100 mi , or about 12% ofthe 3. area used by the cougar population), and we • Beier and Loe (1992), in a paper partially soon realized that meaningful biological results related to this study, suggested how to demanded expanding to the entire range. In evaluate impacts to wildlife movements. spring 1989 the study area expanded to include This paper is includedas Appendix 3. Irvine Company holdings east of 1-5 and the • Beier (I993b) described a version of the Cleveland National Forest. From September software used in these simulations, 1987 through August 1989, US Marine Corps modified for use as a teachingtool. Base Camp Pendleton funded a companion • Beier reports on "Dispersal movements of study of cougars on Camp Pendleton and cougars in fragmented habitat" in a paper Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station (Padley to be submitted for publication this 1990). From the beginning, the sister studies summer. co-operated closely, and after September 1989 we formally included these lands in our study. Additional papers, presently being prepared for In early 1990 we expanded intothe San Joaquin publication, will present other results to the Hills, Chino Hills, and the Santa Rosa Plateau. scientific community. This final study area included all large wildlands west of Interstate 15 north of State Route 76 and south ofState Route 60. These Study Area man-made boundaries delimit a biologically meaningful study area because these urban The Santa Ana Mountain Range was features circumscribe the real confines of a our study area. It included about 2070 square single cougar population. Our study thus 2 km (800 mi ) ofcontiguous wildlands used by encompassedan entire cougar population for its cougars; these wildlands include the Santa final 2Y2 years. Margarita Mountains, the Santa Rosa Plateau, the Chino Hills, and the nearby San Joaquin The area included a diversity of Hills (Figure 1). The study area thus straddled vegetation communities including: 5 counties and abutted 17 incorporated cities. • chaparral, dominated by chamise About 61% ofcougar habitat in the study area (Adenostema fasciculatum), ceanothus is in some sort of protected status (Table 1). (Ceanothus spp.), scrub oak (Quercus The largest of these parcels (Trabuco Ranger dumosa), and mountain mahogany District, Camp Pendleton, Starr Ranch, and (CercocaIJ>Us betuloides). Sumac (Rhus Caspers Park) form a large central habitat area. and Malosma spp) and toyon (Heteromeles Many of the smaller protected parcels are at arbuitifolia) were also common at lower risk of being fragmented from the central elevations, as was manzanita habitat area (Table 1), and the central habitat (Arctostaphylos spp.) at higher elevations. area itselfis at risk of being isolated from the • oak woodlands, dominated by coast live adjacent population in the Palomar Range oak (Q. agrifolia) and engelmann oak (Q. (Figure 1). engelmannii). 6 Table 1. Area(hectares)ofprotectedlandscontainedincougarhabitatintheSantaAnaMountainRange. OwnershipandParcelName Areasfonningalarge Areas surroundedby contiguousblock unprotectedland Federal: ClevelandNational Forest 53,604a ClevelandNationalForest(6parcels) 626 b CampPendleton 49,292 FallbrookNavalWeaponsStation 3,099 BureauofLandManagement(7parcels) 550 B~eauofLandManagement(1 parcel) 364 State: ChinoHillsStatePark 5,059 c SanDiegoStateUniversityFieldStation 1,805 DepartmentofFish& GameCoalCanyonPreserve 385 OrangeCountyParks: Caspers 3,085 LimestoneCanyon 2,169d O'Neill 805 WhitingRanch 632 Irvine 193 WagonWheel 178 SantiagoOaks 142 PrivateReserves: SantaRosaPlateauPreserve 2,803e NationalAudubon SocietyStarrRanch 1,578 RanchoMissionViejoConservancy 486 Total 111,407 15,448 a excludesprivateinholdings. . b includes land leased to San Onofre Beach State P~ excludes 1700 ha in urban uses and airfield; includes some bombingrangesthatmaynotbe suitablehabitat. cincludes510haofBLMlandadministeredbythefield station. d expectedtobetransferredtoCOWltyfromprivateownership. e administered by The Nature Conservancy (INC); includes lands owned by INC, State of California, and Riverside County. • riparian areas, dominated by coast live • grasslands, a mixture of native perennials oak, sycamore (Platanus racemosa), willow (Stipa spp) and exoticannuals. (Salix spp.), mule fat (Baccharis pilularis), • orchards, predominantly of oranges or andalder (Alnus rhombifolia) avocados • coastal sage scrub, dominated by buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), true The topography was rugged, with sages (Salvia spp.), and (near the coast) elevations ranging from sea level to about 1690 California sagebrush (Artemisia m. Very few drainages had perennial surface californica), flow throughout their length, but seeps and • conifer forests, including bigcone doug-fir other water sources were well-distributed (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa), coulter pine throughout the area. Most- water sources (Pinus coulteri), and Tecate cypress remained reliable throughout the drought years (Cupressus forbesii), were found mainly at thatcharacterizedthe first halfofthe study. higher elevations, especially on north facing slopes. '7 8 each animal was observed until it was able to Methods walk. We relied heavily on data obtained Each captured cougar was fitted with a from radio-tagged cougars. A total of 32 radio-transmitter collar, weighing about 650g cougars were captured and radio-tagged during (model 500, Telonics, Inc., Mesa, AZ). this study. Animals were tagged and died at Mortality sensors in each collar caused the different times, sothat the number monitored at pulse rate to increase after 6 hours ofinactivity. any point in time varied from 4 to 16 (Table 2). Animals were recaptured to replace the To avoid burdening young animals with the transmitter about 30 months after transmitter stress of pursuit and the weight of a radio-tag, deployment. we did not pursue or capture animals under about 10 months ofage. We regularly determined locations of radio-tagged cougars. Locations were Cougars were captured by using determined from the air about once every 10 hounds or snares, and immobilized with days. Ground locations were obtained more ketamine hydrochloride and xylazine frequently, usually every 1-4 days, using hydrochloride in a concentrated 5:1 mixture standard triangulation techniques (Mech 1983), (Jessup and Clark 1986). Immobilized cougars usually with a single observer. were examined and assigned an age based on tooth wear, pelage, and body mass (Ashman et On over 180 occasions during this al. 1983). Some animals were ear-tattooedwith study, a focal animal was located by a distinctive letter or number code. External triangulation every 15 minutes for periods ofup body measurements were taken and body mass to 24 hours. Seventy four (74) of the early was measured on a spring scale for most sessions were for full diel (24-hour) periods, animals. Antibacterial dressing was applied to usually noon to noon. Because cougars were any wounds, and ophthalmic salve was applied rarely active during daylight, 108 of the later to prevent drug-induced corneal dehydration. session were nocturnal, starting I hour before Each cougar was assigned a letter-number sunset and continuing until 1hour after sunrise. code, with the letter indicating sex (M, F), and In selecting the focal animal for a session, we the number indicating the order in which the gave strong preference to dispersing juveniles animal was captured (starting with 1 for the exploring new terrain, to cats at the wildland first animal of each sex). Blood was drawn urban interface, andto cougars that might yield from most cougars and sentto CDFG's Wildlife information on unknown travel routes. Investigations Lab (WIL) (Rancho Cordova CAl and/or to National Cancer Institute (NCI) Other field methods included spotlight (Frederick MD). WIL tested the blood for surveys to determine deer herd composition, p~thogens and other characteristics. NCI track surveys for cougar presence, search of received tissue from 11 animals (Males 6, 10, historical records for cougar attacks, building a 12, 13; Females 2, 5, 15-19) for use in their population simulation model, post-mortem study of cougar population genetics across the examinations to determine cause of death, and Americas. Johimbine was administered to most collection and analysis of scats to determine cougars to speed recovery from the drugs, and prey. These methods are discussed in the relevant sections ofthis report. Table 2. Dates ofbirth, capture, and death for 32 cougars radio-tagged in the Santa Ana and Santa Margarita MOlmtain Rangesduring 1986-1992. ID# beginswith "F" for females or"M" for males. Animalsdesignated "alive" were livingasof Feb 11993. ID# Birth Dateof Dateofdeath Notes: Year capture Fl 1981 Oct31 1986 Jull 1989 nolitters 1986-89,killedbycougar .,--F2 1982 Nov51986 Mar 121991 litter Jul 1989 (sons M3 & M4), broke femur in vehicle accidentDec 1989,hadunusual kinkedtail; diedofintestinal disease .........F3 1983 Sep 16 1987 Dec281989 litters in Nov 1987 (3 cubs, all died by Feb 1989) and Jul 1989(3 cubs); diedofintestinaldisease ../F4 1979 Jan81988 Jul201990 litterJul 1989(2 cubsdiedwithin3mos);diedof"oldage" F5 1984 May 17 1989 alive nolitters 1989-1992;verythin, blueeyes, stumptail /F6 1984 May20 1989 May23 1992 litterAug 1990(sonsMIl & MI2),killedbycougar F7 1986 May271989 lostradiocontactAug 15 1992 F8 1986 May29 1989 Aug 141989 killedinvehicleaccidentonS.R. 91 F9 1983 Oct 171987 Mar 11992 radiofailed Jul1988, killedon1-15 southofTemecula FlO 1982 Feb11 1987 Oct 1991? disappearedOct 1991 (death suspected); litters Jul 1989(son M7)andJun 1991 (2-3 cubs). FIl 1985 Aug 141988 Jan251993 litterJul 1989(daughterFI4), shot(goatdepredation) /F12 1983 Aug 151988 Dec21 1990 litterMay 1989(sonsM8& MIO),killedon1-5 F13 1981 Mar25 1990 Oct 10 1990 mayhavehada yearlingcubatcapture;killedonS.R. 74 F14 1989 Dec21 1990 collarslippedoff F15 1987 Feb21 1991 Jun 13 1992 bredseveraltimeswithM9, butnolitters 1991-92;brokehip invehicleaccidentJun4 1992,diedseveraldayslater F16 1989 Jul281991 Sep191991 died 5weeksaftervehicleaccident F17 1989 Jul281991 Jan71992 diedofunknowncauses(noacutetrauma) F18 1986 Jul281991 alive litterDec 1989(daughtersF16&F17) F19 1987 Aug81991 alive nolittersduring 1991-92 Ml 1980 Jan13 1988 Feb61988 breedingmale(severalconsorts); shot(sheepdepredation) M2 1987 Oct 10 1989 Mar4 1992 breedingmale(manyconsorts); shot(goatdepredation) M3 1989 Jun51990 Feb 16 1991 entered residential area as a disperser (Feb 8 1991), died of disease M4 1989 Jun51990 Nov 10 1990 died in vehicle accident or killed by cougar (fed upon by F2 &M3) M5 1989 Aug31990 Sep22 1991 captured as disperser in a residential area, broke hip and knee in vehicle accident Apr 23 1991, injuries were major factor indeath M6 1989 Aug271990 alive captured as disperser, crossed S.R. 91 at Coal Canyon 22 times M7 1989 Oct23 1990 alive successfullydispersed;nobreedingdocumented M8 1989 Oct291990 May31991 dispersedfromPendletontoChinoHills,killedonS.R. 60 M9 1986 Feb 17 1991 alive breedingmale(manyconsorts) MIO 1989 Feb25 1991 Sep 15 1992 dispersed from Pendleton to S.R. 91, broke femur May 7 1991 invehicleaccident,killedonimpactinsecondaccident MIl 1990 May41991 Feb291992 light injury in vehicle accident Feb 4 1992, shot in City of Oceanside M12 1990 Aug 15 1991 Apr 11992 dispersed viaPechangaCorridorinto PalomarRange; died of unknowncauses M13 1988 Oct251991 alive capturedasdisperser,nobreedingdocumented 9

Description:
Jun 1, 1993 Cougars in parks and near wilderness trails. 95. CHAPTER 10. cougar sightings in the San Joaquin Hills and. Laguna .. Cleveland National Forest (6 parcels). Camp Pendleton .. overlapped each other minimally (Map 4). However, home . of Talega, San Mateo, and La Paz Canyons, which are
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.