California Condor
The natural
environment of the modern
world has been under siege for the better part of the
past century. This has
been due to many factors. The waste produced by an
ever-expanding human
population has tainted much of the natural resources
available to both humans
and animals alike. Efforts to curb this waste output
and to more effectively
dispose of the waste have failed in the mainstream. The
constant change of
the common environment instituted by humans who have
collectively sought to
modify their own habitat has exacted a high toll on the
available habitat for
lesser creatures. Constant waste production, poor
disposal, and habitat
encroachment have combined to render the balance of the
natural world
asunder. "The delicate and intricate balance of the natural
world has been
damaged by a dominant species that has commonly disregarded its
inherent
responsibility to garnish its actions concurrent with the world it
shares
with the rest of nature" (Center for Reproduction of Endangered
Species.
p3). An all too common result of this imbalance is the expiration of
entire
species of animals that are dependent on precious
resources.
Historically, the presence of humans McNulty 2 has
exponentially accelerated the
natural rate at which fringe species have met
with extinction. Modern humans
have followed their own ancient precedent in
this regard. "Recorded evidence
of early human settlement has shown that
human presence alone had accelerated
extinction rates to several times its
natural rate" (Center for the
Reproduction of Endangered Species. p4).
However, it is a different precedent
that modern humans have sought with the
advent of a new and more complete
awareness of our collective role as the
dominant species. Several recent
advances in waste treatment are offering
alternatives to the usual high-output,
wasteful societal paradigm. Although
habitat encroachment continues to be a
source of great conflict between the
human population and the animal world, the
human race has begun in earnest to
attempt restoration of some species that have
fallen casualty to pollution,
encroachment, or both. Although success has been
limited, these restorative
efforts represent a reckoning on the behalf of humans
with their place in the
natural order. One of the most successful of these
programs concerns the
California Condor. This magnificent species had all but
disappeared from its
natural range due to the human presence. With the recently
recorded demise of
the California Condor’s natural population came the effort
to repopulate
selected areas of habitat with captively breed condors. McNulty 3
THE
STUDY OF THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR The California Condor is a remarkable
species
of scavenging birds indigenous primarily to California. Early studies
showed
populations of condors ranging from the rocky coastal areas to the
interior
mountains. In the early 1900s, sightings of these majestic birds,
although
reclusive in nature, were commonplace. Early in the 1900s, serious
scientific
studies began on the California Condors. There were many
successful studies in
the wild, and there was increasing interest from the
scientific community. In
1939, the naturalist Carl Koford first began a
careful scientific study of these
condors in the wild. Carefully documented
field studies yielded a wealth of
information about a species in the American
West that had previously eluded the
scientific eye. One development resulting
from the study of Carl Koford was the
establishment of the exact nature of
the diet of these birds. Although known to
be primarily scavengers, it was
learned just how well adapted these birds are at
finding and discriminating
suitable prey. It was learned that the primary
feeding times were during
daylight hours, with most activity centering near
noon. They were observed
feeding on carcasses in all states of decay, and even
competing with other
more aggressive species for rights to a kill. Their bills
are exquisitely
adapted to tearing animal flesh, and their digestive systems are
specially
suited to digesting rotting flesh. Condors were not known to have
attacked
live prey, and the diet of condors was found to have been an
assortment
McNulty 4 of carcasses found throughout the feeding range.
"Condors were found
to have spent an average of fifteen hours a day at the
roosting site, and even
more hours on days of inclement weather" (Grossman.
p38). These studies also
produced the first scientific measure of the social
structure of these birds.
Their population had come under suspicion
during this time, and the population
count during this time seemed to prove
their decline. The territories of these
birds were found to be wide
stretching, often including several hundred miles.
The ability of these
birds to roam these territories in search of food was found
to be incredible,
with some specimens gliding on large wings as far as ten miles
with no wing
movement. Poor weather and still air had been found to restrict the
birds to
the nesting site. In optimum conditions, making use of thermal updrafts
for
efficient flying was found to be common among these birds. This mobility
was
shown to provide another advantage with the remains of coastal marine
molluscs
found near some nesting sites during the study. In combination with
the diet of
these birds, this mobility led to conflict with the ranching
efforts of humans.
Many ranchers began making a misguided effort to
protect their livestock by
regularly shooting condors even though condors are
scavengers, and are not
hunters of live prey. Further, sport shooting went
largely unregulated for
years. Some other developments included establishing
the nature of the
reproductive biology of the condors. These birds were
observed as cavity
dwellers. "Nesting in rocky caves, crevices, or among
boulder formations,
these condors were found to move to new sites between
nesting attempts" (The
Encyclopedia of Birds). This was deemed to be part
McNulty 5 of the habitat
needs these birds required. The incubation period of
these birds was found to be
fifty-four to fifty-eight days, with each parent
taking turns guarding the nest.
The fragility of these birds was
attributed in part to their low birth rate.
"A mature female will lay one
egg only every two years, and the young are fed
throughout most of their
eighteen to twenty month adolescence. Although a chic
begins flight practice
at five to six months of age, the dependency on the
adults for food can
continue into the second year" (Audubon’s Birds of
America.). This
reproductive profile rendered the condor population sensitive to
hunting and
encroachment because they required so long a period of time to
regenerate
losses in population. "The effects of industrial chemical pollution
further
complicated regeneration of losses. Industrial chemical pollution has
been
proven to be destructive with studies having shown that the eggshells
of
condors were reduced in thickness by as much as thirty percent after
the
widespread use of DDT" (MacMillan Illustrated Encyclopedia of
Birds).
CONSERVATION EFFORTS FOR THE CALIFORNIA CONDOR With the knowledge
gained from
successful field studies, scientists began to consider solutions
to the
dwindling wild population of California Condors. Captive breeding was
an idea
that garnished considerable attention from the general scientific
McNulty 6
community. Two scientists from the San Diego Zoo proposed a
captive-breeding
program aimed specifically at regenerating the wild
population of California
Condors. The San Diego Zoo Director Belle
Benchley and Curator K.C. Lint had met
with considerable success with a
captive breeding program aimed at breeding
Andean Condors through a
technique known as double clutching. This involved
removing eggs from captive
breeding pairs, thereby stimulating the female to lay
one egg every year. The
doubled egg laying rate offered potential for
regeneration of numbers faster
than a naturally breeding pair. Pressure from
environmental groups eventually
prevented the proposed program from going into
action with the overriding
concern being disturbance of the remaining pairs in
the wild. The attention
devoted to the preservation of the California Condor
experienced a resurgence
in nineteen sixty-six when the California Condor
appeared on the first
published list of endangered species. The population
estimates ranged from
fifty to sixty birds. The population continued to decline
and in nineteen
seventy-nine estimates ranged from twenty-five to thirty-five
birds in the
wild. There was increasing pressure from the California Fish and
Game
Commission, The Audubon Society, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
to
implement an aggressive program to save the remaining condors. Two years
later,
a positive observation was made by biologists of California Condors
laying
replacement eggs after losses of first laid eggs at remote nesting
sites. This
provided additional credence to the idea of using the double
clutching technique
with McNulty 7 captive pairs to regenerate the species.
The Condor Research
Center was granted license to attempt deliberate
placement clutching or condor
pairs to aid in a captive-breeding program.
Several years passed with continuing
efforts to begin captive breeding
resulting in the first captive hatch in March
of nineteen eighty-three. By
this time, the wild population was estimated to be
nineteen birds. By
nineteen eighty-five, this continued decline of the wild
breeding population
coupled with the initial captive breeding success resulted
in approval of a
plan to capture the remaining wild birds for captive breeding.
The
remaining nine wild birds were captured, and the breeding program
expanded.
Eventually, artificial incubation began as part of the
regeneration effort. The
artificially incubated eggs hatched at nearly twice
the rate of eggs studied in
the wild. This high success rate lent further
credence to the once controversial
intervention in the name of species
regeneration. The proper care of the captive
birds was the purpose behind the
design of the captive breeding facility. The
first facility was called the
Condorminium, and was designed as an enclosure
that would allow the most
natural setting possible. This was concurrent with the
final goal of
reintroduction. The facilities used for this captive-breeding
program were
designed to allow limited flapping and mobility for the birds,
thus
mitigating the stress of captivity. Constructed in an area of access to
wind and
some weather, these enclosures helped to preserve some sense of
instinct. To
further maintain a healthy environment, the enclosures were
strictly off limits
to the public. Enclosures used McNulty 8 in this program
were installed in
several regions of the American West, with pairs being
raised in San Diego,
Boise, and eventually Los Angeles. The success of
this program was to be
measured by the release of breeding pairs of condors
that were bread in
captivity. There were several problems to be addressed in
this process. One
question was how to ensure that the condors to be released
would have the
benefit of human aversion. Minimizing human contact during the
rearing stage was
one measure stipulated in the program outline. Negative
reinforcement training
was widely used to condition captive birds with the
skills needed to succeed in
the wild. Aversion training was also used in an
attempt to preclude accidental
injuries after release. The natural curiosity
of condors can lead wild condors
near population centers, often to perch on
power lines. Aversion training aimed
at preventing such roosting can include
presenting captive birds with a
combination of trees and mock telephone poles
to perch on. If the birds choose
to perch on the mock poles rather than on
the available trees, they are provided
negative reinforcement by way of a
mild shock. These techniques are in place to
afford captive birds every
opportunity for success upon release. The release
program continued to grow,
with multiple pairs gaining release between nineteen
ninety-three and
nineteen ninety-seven. The first release site was in the Los
Padres
National Forest in southern California. There were two separate
release
points constructed there in response to an increase in human activity
and power
lines. There was a second release point used in Lion Canyon, which
is also in
the Los Padres National Forest. Subsequently, a site thirty miles
north of the
Grand Canyon called Vermillion McNulty 9 Cliffs was chosen
as a release site
because of its unique landscape and remote location. The
success of the released
condors has proven encouraging. There are four areas
now populated by released
breeding pairs, and future releases are planned at
regular intervals.
Maintenance of released birds includes baiting
designated feeding areas with
carcasses to encourage the birds to learn to
scavenge. This requires regular
placement of food with careful avoidance of
any human contact in order to help
preserve the bird’s natural searching
instinct. Many questions remain about
the future of these birds, but the
regeneration of the wild population continues
to benefit from the captive
breeding programs. LIMITATIONS OF CONDOR CAPTIVE
BREEDING Captive
breeding programs represent a concerted effort on behalf of
humans to sustain
the species that have been gravely affected by the changes in
environment
bought about by the actions of mankind. Many people accept programs
such as
these as progress toward mending the damage inflicted by humans on
the
environment. There are, however, several fundamental questions that are
going
unanswered. First, does answering the slow regeneration problem through
captive
double clutching fix the problem of extinction or simply delay a
symptom? It is
important to recognize that the numbers of wild condors were
diminished to the
point of near extinction as a result of human destruction
of habitat. Through
pollution and McNulty 10 encroachment, humans have
permanently changed the
environment. Slowing this rate of change is central
to any solution if we are to
attempt to reach equilibrium with nature.
Second, can the collective actions of
the human race be changed sufficiently
for the continued survival of fringe
species? Evidence has shown that
conflict between fragile species and the
agricultural settlement of common
habitat inevitably leads to the decimation of
the species in question, in
this case the California Condor. The solution to
this element of the problem
is perhaps the most elusive. This cannot be answered
by resettlement or
repopulation. The actions of the human race must become
responsible on the
individual level. Education about endangered species and
federal protection
of endangered species can help, but the questionable future
of fragile
species can be made more certain only by responsible actions on the
part of
individuals. Additionally, can humans share common land with wild
scavengers
with out justification for needless hunting? Many people do not see
why
humans should try to share resources with a competing species. This leads
to
perhaps the most central question concerning conservation in general.
Why
conserve? Many average people fail to see the fault in the actions of
humans as
the dominant species on the planet when annihilate subordinate
species. If there
exists a conflict between human interests and the needs of
a competing species,
then why accommodate a lesser-developed animal? The
answer can only be found in
the idea that humans have a responsibility to
preserve the natural order.
Perhaps best answered by McNulty 11 a Park
Ranger with whom I had the
opportunity to speak about this very issue,
"saving weak species may seem like
a waste of time to some people, but as
soon as we give up on a single species,
we have started down the wrong path".
Humans, as a race, benefit from natural
preservation in the projected future.
Long term preservation of natural
resources, plant, mineral, and animal
alike, is an idea that holds little merit
with a majority of humans who are
often faced with more immediate concerns for
their own well being and
welfare. Balancing immediate needs and long term
interests is one challenge
facing the human race as resources become more scarce
and human needs grow
with our population. If we are to collectively survive as
members of an
intricate ecosystem, we must learn to manage our natural dominance
toward the
good of the planet. McNulty 12
Bibliography
"New World Vultures."
Macmillan Illustrated Animal Encyclopedia. 1984 ed.
p216 "Condors and
Vultures." Audubon’s Birds of America. CrossRiver Press,
1981. p89
Grossman, Mary Louise. Birds of Prey of the World. Clarkson N.
Potter,
1964. p37-39, 203-204. "Birds of Prey- The Raptors." The
Encyclopedia of
Birds. 1985 ed. p103-104 "California Condor Conservation
Efforts." Center
for Reproduction of Endangered Species. 1 April 2000. pp1-5.
San Diego Zoo. 8
April 2000.
*http://www.sandiegozoo.org/cres/milestone.html*. "Condor
Reproductive
Biology." Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species. 1 April
2000. pp
1-4. San Diego Zoo. 7 April 2000.
*http://www.sandiegozoo.org/cres/reproductive.html