[The following was originally published as a chapter in: "Nine Feet from Tip to Tip: the California Condor through History." (Gresham, Oregon: Symbios Books, 2012).
***
In 1949, Belle J. Benchley, Executive Director of the San Diego Zoo, applied to the California Fish and Game Commission for a permit to capture condors to breed in captivity. No condors were captured, and what followed is generally treated as an interesting sidelight in condor preservation history. Actually, the aftermath of that permit application defined condor research and management for the next 30 years [1].
Mrs. Benchley asked for the permit on the basis of the success she and curator of birds Kenton C. Lint had increasing the production of captive Andean condors. Both Andean and California condors in the wild usually raise one young every two years, the result of a one-egg clutch, a long incubation period, and the slowness with which young condors gain independence. The zoo's pair of Andean condors had produced an egg and reared a chick one year, then (as expected) had skipped a year before laying their next egg. That egg was allowed to be incubated by the parent birds, but the nestling was taken after several weeks and raised by hand. Instead of skipping a year, the condors laid an egg the next year. This egg was hatched by the parents, and again the nestling was removed and reared by hand. Once again, the adult laid eggs in consecutive years. This time, the egg was taken and hatched in an incubator; the adults produced a second egg a month and a half later. That nestling was taken from them after four months, stimulating the parents to lay for the fourth year in a row. Through manipulation of egg and young the next year, the pair were again induced to produce two young. In six years, one pair of Andean condors gave rise to seven young, four of them in only two nesting seasons. The potential to produce four young in the time a wild pair of condors would produce only one seemed to the zoo personnel a possible answer to some of the California condors' problems [2].
There is some confusion over what Mrs. Benchley initially requested, and what action was taken by the Fish and Game Commission. It was reported in Audubon Society and Forest Service files that the Zoo had asked for permission to collect either two condor chicks or two eggs, but Zoo and Commission records agree that the application was for trapping two mature condors. The Commission approved the trapping permit at their 6 January 1950 meeting [3], but opposition developed immediately, led by Carl Koford and Alden Miller of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology [4]. On 27 January 1950, the Commission withdrew their permission, pending a public hearing on the subject. Then followed a 21 February 1950 letter from the Forest Service to the Commission, stating that - under Department of Agriculture Regulation T-9 (see Chapter 17) - they would deny entry onto national forest land for any condor collecting [5]. The public hearing was held in San Diego 28 July 1950; with the Forest Service refusing to allow trapping on the national forest, and with more public opposition than support, the Commission refused to reinstate the permit [6].
Stymied by the Forest Service refusal to allow condor trapping on the national forest, the Zoo put its condor breeding plans on hold for two years. Then, on 28 October 1952, Mrs. Benchley reapplied for a permit. She noted that they had not asked earlier because "efforts to locate pairs of Condors living outside the Preserve [national forest], in areas suitable to their capture without injury were unsuccessful." However, she continued, "Leslie F. Edgerton, a game warden who is very familiar with the zoo and its program of breeding Andean condors has located several condors living outside any preserve. He has been watching these birds with care and believes that a pair can be collected safely" [7]. The Commission considered the request at their meeting on 24 November 1952; despite continuing protests from representatives of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Sierra Club, and Cooper Ornithological Society, the vote was unanimous in favor of the permit [8].
Director Benchley hired Lewis Wayne Walker, a nature writer and photographer, to capture two condors. For three months during the winter 1952-1953, Walker attempted to bait condors to his trap site on a private ranch just south of the national forest. Although as many as 12 condors approached the trap site, none were captured [9]. In the meantime, the opposition had managed to enlist the support of a state senator, and in early April 1953 the California Assembly passed a resolution barring all future attempts to trap condors [10]. The ban did not take effect until 15 January 1954, but the Fish and Game Commission immediately requested that the Zoo delay any trapping efforts until after 15 June 1953, to avoid any possible disruption of nesting activity [11]. The Zoo attempted to shift their efforts away from the controversial refuge area by checking reports of condors around Mojave, California, some 100 miles northeast, but no good trapping location was found [12]. In late 1953, Walker was again attempting to capture condors on the ranch above Fillmore. Cold, snowy weather hampered his efforts and, although he reported seeing condors regularly, none had been captured before the trapping permit expired in January 1954 [13]. With the new law in place, and with Mrs. Benchley retiring from the Zoo, all plans for captive breeding of California condors were set aside.
* * *
Opponents of the Zoo plans - including Miller, Koford, John Baker of National Audubon, Robert Easton of Sisquoc fame - received most of the publicity, and eventually "won." Their arguments were that captive breeding wasn’t necessary (because, although there weren’t many condors, Koford thought the population was stable); that capturing either adult condors or nestlings would likely cut down on the breeding potential of those left in the wild; that, because the sexes were not readily identifiable, probably more than two condors would have to be handled before the Zoo secured a pair; that captive raised birds would never be suitable for release to the wild; and that a zoo was no place for a California condor [14]. However, the Zoo was supported by a number of biologists, aviculturists, and bird lovers who saw the Zoo’s success breeding Andean condors as directly applicable to improving the California condors’ status. Notable was Jean Delacour, director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, and one of the best-known and respected ornithologists in the world. William J. Sheffler, a director of the Los Angeles Museum and a past president of the Cooper Ornithological Society, also favored the captive breeding plans. Along with Mrs. Benchley and curator Ken Lint, they argued that the time to start the experiment was while the condor population was “stable” (if indeed it was), rather than waiting until there was little hope of saving the species from extinction [15].
Basically, the "sides" in the argument were those who favored proactive management versus those who expected the condors to make it on their own with minimal help. In his soon-to-be released report, Koford made only three recommendations [16]: enact federal protective laws to supplement state laws; maintain nesting sanctuaries; and educate those people most likely to influence condor survival (government workers, ranchers, hunters, oil men). This was a continuation of the Joseph Grinnell philosophy that the condors would do best if few people knew about them, and they were allowed to peacefully fend for themselves (Chapter 17). To this, Koford added an esthetic slant [17]: “To put a condor in a zoo greatly diminishes the quality of the recreational value of seeing a California condor in its native habitat. Compared to the Andean condor, the California condor in a cage is ugly, pitiful and uninspiring -- just a big black vulture with a naked head and neck. The beauty of the California condor lies entirely in the magnificence of its matchless soaring flight. No cage is large enough to allow a condor to soar. If some day -- I hope not in our lifetime -- there is only one condor left, would it not be vastly preferable to see it soaring over the Sierra Madre than imprisoned in a city park?” The contrast between the free-flying condor - the very spirit of the wilderness - and the ugly caged vulture would surface again and again in future years whenever preservation of the condor was discussed.
* * *
Some objections to the San Diego Zoo proposal were justified. For example, there was no way to identify the sex of a California condor in the field at that time, so how would Walker know when he had a pair? Also, if condors were caught, how would one man working alone safely handle them in such a remote location? The objective was obscure, as well: was the purpose to produce condors for other zoos, or was the intent to eventually try to release zoo-produced condors to the wild? If the latter, did Benchley and Lint have the same vision expressed by Walker, of eventually releasing condors on some remote island off Mexico? [18]. The answer to that question might have made a difference to some people interested in the proposal, but the Fish and Game Commission reduced the options by stipulating in the November 1952 permit that condors produced in captivity could not be released to the wild, but could only be given to other California zoos. This had the odd effect of changing the effort from a potential rehabilitation project to merely a zoo program, thereby providing fuel to the opposition viewpoint that California condors did not belong in zoos!
Probably most damning to the zoo proposal was the timing of it. Koford's long-term study was just being made public, and it indicated an apparently stable condor population. Memories of the long fight to improve the security of the Sespe condor sanctuary - a fight based largely on the perceived need to keep the condors safe from disturbance - were still fresh enough to raise questions about how this proposed "disturbance" would differ from other perturbations of the population. Breeding in captivity of any animal had to be considered experimental at that time, and zoos were still perceived as menageries, not scientific entities. Even with much better planning, it's doubtful the project could have happened at that time.
* * *
For the next 15 years, the San Diego Zoo venture was itself a mostly forgotten incident in the annals of the California condor. Not to be forgotten, however, was the California state law that grew out of the controversy. The Assembly resolution, as incorporated into the Fish and Game Code as Section 1179.5, read: “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 permit heretofore issued shall have any force or effect for any purpose after January 15, 1954.” The law was so rigid that, even though the condor population was clearly in decline, all innovative thought about condor recovery was repressed through the 1960s and into the 1970s. Isolation and “protection” - although clearly failing as preservation strategies - continued to be the only games in town.
Chapter Notes
1. The San Diego Zoo story played out largely in the newspapers. I've pieced together the sequence of events from a variety of sources, mainly second-hand. The records of the California Fish and Game Commission on this subject are incomplete, but a few items were located in the California State Archives (File F3498:1-13a, Fish and Game Commission records).
2. Lint, K. C. 1951. Condor egg hatched in incubator. Condor 53(2):102.
Walker, L. W. 1953. A naturalist's efforts to save last condors. Los Angeles (California) Times, 4 May 1953.
3. Analysis of agenda items, California Fish and Game Commission meeting, 28 July 1950, San Diego. California State Archives (Sacramento, California), File F3498:1-13a, Fish and Game Commission records.
4. Childs, H. E. 1950. Cooper Club meetings, Northern Division. Condor 52(2):96.
5. Analysis of agenda items, California Fish and Game Commission meeting, 28 July 1950, San Diego. California State Archives (Sacramento, California), File F3498:1-13a, Fish and Game Commission records.
6. I have been unable to locate minutes of the 28 July 1950 Commission meeting, so the results are inferred from later communications. In a 28 October 1952 letter from Belle Benchley to California Governor Earl Warren, Mrs. Benchley stated that a permit had been issued in July 1950, but that the Zoo had been unable to locate any condors outside of the national forest. However, in a 3 November 1952 response from the Commission it was stated that "according to our records, no permit was authorized by the Commission when this matter was discussed in 1950." The letters are in the California State Archives (Sacramento, California), File F3498:1-13a, Fish and Game Commission records.
7. Letter in California State Archives (Sacramento, California), File F3498:1-13a, Fish and Game Commission records.
8. California Fish and Game Commission meeting minutes, 24 November 1952. California State Archives (Sacramento, California), File F3498:1-13a, Fish and Game Commission records.
Also: Miller, A. H. 1953. More trouble for the California condor. Condor 55(1):47-48.
9. Walker, L. W. 1953. A naturalist's efforts to save last condors. Los Angeles (California) Times, 4 May 1953.
10. Anonymous. 1953. Bill protecting condors, burros passes Assembly. Press Courier (Oxnard, California), 3 April 1953.
11. Anonymous. 1953. Zoo at San Diego asked to delay condor hunt. Los Angeles (California) Times, 11 April 1953.
12. Anonymous. 1953. Survey seeks new sites for condor traps. Los Angeles (California) Times, 13 August 1953.
Anonymous. 1953. Mojave area given up in condor hunt. Los Angeles Times, 20 August 1953.
13. Anonymous. 1954. Condor hunt in Sespe country fails again. Los Angeles Times, 19 January 1954.
14. Miller, A. H. 1953. The case against trapping California condors. Audubon Magazine 55(6):261-262.
15. Ainsworth, E. 1953. Hunt starts for pair of California condors. Los Angeles Times, 10 February 1953.
16. Pages 135-138 in: Koford, C. B. 1953. The California condor. Research Report No. 4, National Audubon Society (New York, New York).
17. During the trapping controversy in 1953, Carl Koford sent copies of his "open letter" to many individuals, organizations, and newspapers, and portions of it appeared in a variety of publications. Copies are preserved in the files of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (Berkeley, California).
18. Walker, L. W. 1953. A naturalist's efforts to save last condors. Los Angeles (California) Times, 4 May 1953.
To the Writing It Down Homepage