the cougar in the santa ana mountain range, california

102 Pages·2004·5.56 MB·English

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