Abstract
The California condor has long captured the imagination of man. Part of the reason is its size, a nine-foot wing span. It's the largest land bird in North America. To see it soar, one could easily mistake it for an airplane because of its stability in flight. Another thing that has contributed to the awesomeness of the condor is its habitat. From the remote, rugged, rocky canyon walls where it nests to the open, oakdotted, rolling hills of the Tehachapi Mountains, the condor is king of the air. Over the years it has been shot by the curious, the malicious, and the ignorant. It has been referred to as "just an overgrown buzzard". In spite of the mixed feelings about the California condor and the variety of reasons for hating or appreciating it, its decline has become a symbol of the destruction and irreversible alteration of the land over which it once soared hundreds of years ago. To see the condor apart from his habitat, is to see him out of context. For this reason the proposal by the National Audubon Society and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to breed condors in captivity has been rooted in controversy. To understand the controversy one needs to understand the bird, its habitat, and the pressures that have been brought to bear upon the species over the past 100 years.
In 1937 a young forester, Cyril S.
Robinson, was instrumental in establishing the Sisquoc Condor Sanctuary in Santa Barbara County. The purpose of this sanctuary was to protect a bathing and roosting site for the California condor. It was brought to the attention of the National Audubon Society that very little was known about the bird and its habits. Therefore the National Audubon Society elicited the assistance of the University of California in Berkeley to study the life history of the California con-
dor. A young graduate student, Carl Koford, was chosen to do the basic research, which has since become the foundation of all further research on the condor. Shortly after the completion of his research in 1946 the 53,000 acre Sespe Wildlife Area was set aside in Ventura County. The word "condor" was purposely kept out of the sanctuary name, as the philosophy of condor preservation was to say nothing about condors. It was hoped that by not mentioning the condor, egg collectors, photographers, and the curious would be kept away from nesting and roosting sites of the giant vulture. It was hoped that condors could maintain their numbers by being left alone. It was felt that there was ample foraging area for the birds and all they needed was a chance to nest in seclusion.
A decade after the establishment of the Sespe sanctuary, an update was done to determine the current status of the condor. Dr. Alden Miller of the University of California at Berkeley headed the research project and turned the field work over to Ian and Eben McMillan of San Luis Obispo County. The McMillans concluded that the condors had declined from 60 to 40 birds and that the reasons for the decline were shooting and possibly poisoning. It was also felt by the McMillans that
food was still abundant and was not a cause of diminishing condors numbers. As a result of their work, the National Audubon Society appointed a "condor warden" to patrol the range of the condor and keep birds from being shot. The position was also created to start an educational work throughout the range of the condor. I took this position in 1965, and shortly after the title was changed to "Condor Naturalist," which is more in keeping with the demands of the job. The range of the condor is vast and there is much need for educating and contacting ranchers, and federal, state, and county wildlife people. There was a lack of awareness of the condor through the range and much misinformation had been spread. Also at this same time a 90 million dollar water project was proposed on the northern boundaries of what is now the Sespe Condor Sanctuary in Ventura County. This project was defeated by the voters of the county on economic grounds, thereby sparing the condor from another instrusion into its habitat.
In 1966 Fred Sibley was appointed to the position of Condor Biologist for the Fish and Wildlife Service. Sibley conducted two years of research to study the effects of the proposed Sespe Creek Project on the condor. At theend of his research he deter-
mined that setting aside the sanctuary was not enough. There are many condor nestsites outside of the sanctuary and Sibley proposed that these be protected from disturbance from construction by setting up a one and one-half mile buffer zone around each nest site. He also felt that trails within one-half mile of nest sites contributed to disturbance and eventual abandonment of nest sites. Sibley also discovered that condors did not necessarily nest every other year as Koford had believed, but nested in several consecutive years followed by several years of not nesting.
In 1969 Sanford Wilbur replaced Sibley as Condor Biologist. Using Sibley's observations, plus his own, Wilbur concluded that an abundance of food in condor habitat did not necessarily mean an abundance of food for the condors. It was found that to be of any use to the condors, food must be available where and when condors are foraging. Food that lies beyond one-half mile from normal condor foraging areas is unlikely to be discovered by the birds.
A comparison of flocks of condors and numbers of individuals seen throughout the year pointed to a steady but slow decline in condors numbers. It is also apparent that condors are successful in pro-
ducing only 0-2 young per year. This rate of production was felt to be inadequate if the birds were to hold their own. In the early 1970's the California Condor Recovery Team drew up a contingency plan. This plan stated, in effect, that if all measures to encourage reproduction failed, captive breeding of condors should be seriously considered. A deadline of 5 years was recommended by the Recovery Team to see if production would increase through supplemental feeding, protection and acquisition of nesting habitat, and the elimination of aircraft disturbance over the nesting area. When condors did not respond to these measures, the Recovery Team submitted the contingency plan to the Fish and Wildlife Service for approval.
Because of the controversial nature of the plan, the National Audubon Society and the American Orinthologists Union picked a panel of scientists from various fields to study the condor situation and make a recommendation. This study concluded that captive propagation must be undertaken if the birds are to survive. The report submitted through the National Audubon Society recommended that studies be made of the effect of pesticides on the condor's environment, and that steps be taken to insure habitat for the eventual release of mature California condors.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed with the Audubon-AOU report and submitted recommendations for captive breeding of condors by requesting $500,000 from Congress to initiate a program of research leading toward captive propagation of the bird. The National Audubon Society and Fish and Wildlife Service determined to put a team of biologists in the field to work cooperatively in this venture. Support was given to the project by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the California Department of Fish and Game. The plan is to initiate a step-by-step methodical research program involving the attachment of radio transmitters to condors. It is hoped to learn more about the birds' range and the interaction within the population. The timetable for the whole program is being kept flexible so that changes can be made as we learn more about the bird. This would be the first time that a "hands on" approach to condor research has been used. Because of the rarity of the great birds, which are now down to less than 30 individuals, and also the almost mystical awe in which the condor is held, the thought of capturing birds for marking has been repugnant to a few of the condor's allies.