[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).
The topic of poisons used to kill “predators” and “vermin” is an emotional one, which has added to the difficulty of trying to assess the role of poisons in the decline of the California condor population. A number of writers in the late 19th century alleged major condor mortality caused by feeding on strychnine-poisoned meat put out to kill predators. Later investigators concluded there was little basis for these earlier claims. In recent years, in the continuing controversy over the use of chemicals, most popular writers have chosen to ignore the 20th century analyses in favor of the earlier reports. It's odd, because nothing really new has come to light on the subject since the 1950s [1]. I guess once we begin to rewrite history, it's impossible to ever completely un-rewrite it.
Oregon and Washington
Strychnine, or nux vomica (the only regularly used predator and rodent poison until well into the 20th century), made its first appearance in California condor range about 1839. That year, Dr. John McLoughlin, chief factor for the Hudson's Bay Company in the Pacific Northwest, requested poison to be used for wolf control on the Company's recently established farms located between Puget Sound and the Columbia River. The Company's governing committee complied, sending "a small quantity of Strychnine made up in dozes [sic] for the destruction of Wolves; it should be inserted in pieces of raw meat placed in such situations that the shepherd's dogs may not have access to them, and the native people should be encouraged by high prices for the skins to destroy wolves at all seasons" [2]. Although the chief purpose in providing strychnine was to protect livestock, it's clear from the directive that poisoning wolves for their pelts was also intended. Later, the Company did not allow its trappers to use strychnine because it damaged the animals' fur [3]. Perhaps in 1839 they didn't yet know about the degrading effects of the poison.
The "small quantity" was apparently all the strychnine available in the area until perhaps 1844. McLoughlin requisitioned 6 more ounces in 1842 or 1843, but Sir George Simpson intended to reduce the order to 1 ounce. Presumably he did this because McLoughlin had declared the earlier batch "perfectly useless" (Simpson's words: I haven't found McLoughlin's actual requisition), and "if the article be useless as represented, much better expose the concern to the loss of one ounce than six, until it be ascertained whether the drug be efficacious or not." This raises some question about how efficient wolf poisoning was at Fort Vancouver and elsewhere in western Washington, but the reply from McLoughlin was that "the remark on the inferior quality, was that, a superior quality to the last might be sent" [4]. This could be construed as McLoughlin saying that the poison worked, but that he thought it should work better. In any event, no more poison had been sent by the end of 1843.
The need for predator control on Hudson's Bay Company lands could not have been great. In 1828, the total numbers of livestock (cattle, goats, horses, swine) at Fort Vancouver were only about 500 head [5]. Between 1833 and 1839, other "farms" were established farther north at Fort Nisqually and the Cowlitz River, but when the first strychnine was ordered in 1839 there were still only 3,000 head of livestock in all western Washington. By 1846 the numbers had grown to about 14,000 head, 80 percent of those sheep, most of which were at Fort Nisqually. (The Cowlitz farm was devoted to raising crops, and never had more than a few hundred head of livestock.) [6]. Some predation by wolves, mountain lions, dogs, and eagles was documented, but sheep (and often cattle) were penned at night to keep them safe [7]. Even if poisoning was "heavy" on the Company farmlands, most of western Washington would have been strychnine-free, with the greatest use being in more northerly areas that appear to have been visited only irregularly by condors. The Company did not use strychnine for their minor livestock operations on the Oregon side of the Columbia River.
Strychnine used by Hudson's Bay Company was probably purchased in England. The Company was the likely source of strychnine being used at the Whitman Mission (at present-day Walla Walla, Washington) in 1841 [8], and they may have supplied the first known strychnine used in Oregon, available at Salem beginning in 1847. Thomas Cox, an immigrant to Oregon in 1846, established a mercantile store in Salem the following year, and the first sale of strychnine has been attributed to him [9]. It may be he purchased the strychnine from the Hudson's Bay Company, as he is known to have acquired some of his stock from John McLoughlin [10]. However, his supply may have come with him from Illinois; when he couldn't sell all the merchandise from his Illinois mercantile, he reportedly had 14 wagons specially constructed to haul the remainder across the plains to Oregon [11]. This amounted to a "respectable store" [12]. I don't know if strychnine was included in his load, but it was in use for killing predators in the Midwest as early as 1839. That winter in Wisconsin, J. MacNish reported [13]: "I gave to a neighbor who had lost a cow, a few grains of strychnine (made from the strychnos calabrinum,) instructing him to cut out small baits, and insert into each, under a flap cut very thin, 1.8 of a grain of the poison. The body of the cow was drawn to a convenient spot on the banks of our Lake, and the prepared baits dropped at different distances around the carcass. The strategem resulted in the death of six wolves besides a number of foxes, raccoons and birds of prey. When these facts became known, I had many applications for the article; and so uniformly successful were these trials, that I can enumerate twenty-six wolves and one panther which have been destroyed by the strychnine, (only 60 grains) which I furnished that winter. One farmer in this town has $40 bounty for the wolves he killed with but one dollar's worth of the poison." In the same time period in Cox's home state of Illinois, the gray wolf was "being driven back by the approach of man, trapped and hunted, and more than all, poisoned by strychnine" [14]. Some immigrants to Oregon were apparently bringing supplies of strychnine with them; as an example, at the crossing of the Snake River at Fort Boise in 1852 [15]: "There was an Indian village near the crossing of the Snake River at this place. These Indians have been feasting on the dead carcasses of emigrant cattle. Some thoughtless emigrants whose cattle died near here cut the carcasses open and put in a bait of strychnine, as they said, 'to kill off some of those pesky coyotes,' but the Indians happened to get hold of these poisoned carcasses and died by the hundreds."
Prior to 1840, there were less than 200 Caucasians in Oregon, almost all of them in the northern Willamette Valley [16]. Although localized farming got an early start there, the only livestock were a few leased from the Hudson's Bay Company. The Company would not sell livestock to settlers, which prompted the formation in 1837 of the Willamette Cattle Company. This local group organized a trip to California to bring cattle to Oregon. On the first overland drive in 1837, 600 of the 800 head of cattle purchased survived to the Willamette Valley. A second drive in 1843 included 1,250 head of cattle, 600 horses and mules, and 3,000 sheep [17]. By early that same year the first concerns were being expressed in the Willamette Valley over the destruction of cattle by wolves, bears, and mountain lions. At meetings held 2 February 1843 and 6 March 1843, a bounty system was established, requiring every participant to subscribe $5.00 to the bounty fund. Bounties were paid for scalps: "for a small wolf, fifty cents; for a large wolf, $3.00; for a lynx, $1.50; for a bear, $2.00, and for a panther $5.00" [18]. From the record, it's difficult to discern just how deep was the concern about predators; while there is no question that livestock loss was an acknowledged problem, the meetings had really been called to discuss the formation of a territorial government. "The object of this war upon the wild animals was simply a ruse to get the French Canadians in the valley to join with the Americans in forming a government" [19]. As further explained by J. Q. Thornton [20]: "The wild beasts had become a very serious evil, because of their great destruction of domestic animals. A number of persons who had held a consultation at the house of Wm. H. Gray, to consider the expediency of organizing a Provisional Government, and who had, or at least supposed they had carefully reflected upon the various retarding influences, thought they saw in the fact mentioned in the beginning of this paragraph, an object of sufficient interest to all, to collect a large number of settlers who would probably adopt some line of harmonious action." At the February meeting, a committee was appointed to make a predator proposal. Then, at the follow-up meeting in March: "James A. O'Neil, who had come to Oregon with Capt. Wyeth in 1834, was privately informed of what was the real object sought to be accomplished by the meeting, and it was intimated to him that he would be called to the chair, in which he was desired to hasten as rapidly as possible over the wild beast and domestic herds, to the real object which in due time would be brought forward in a resolution."
* * *
Whatever the actual level of concern about predators, until 1847 the problem had to be handled with guns, dogs, and traps. Once strychnine became available, it appears to have been regularly used, but the actual amount distributed may have been far less that later popular histories implied. The few journals and reminiscences that mention strychnine are short on details. A typical entry (from pioneer John Arthur, but not necessarily a personal remembrance) [21]: "In the early pioneer days, the wild beast of prey became a very serious evil, because of their great destruction of domestic animals. The extermination of them was an object to which the principal stock owners gave an encouraging word, and ample contributions of money... The big timber wolf did not only kill cows, but occasionally a poor horse, but they were soon extirpated mostly by the use of strychnine; but the bear, panther and coyote remained numerous a number of years."
Daniel Waldo remembered that in the 1840s, "the wolves ate up a lot of horses. They ate up 14 for our company one spring. Cattle would fight them, but horses would run; the wolves would run them. I got some nux vomica that killed them off in about two months. We just rubbed it on a file and put it on a piece of meat" [22].
John Minto reminisced that [23] "...the well-aimed bullet was the only way of killing these most destructive enemies of domestic stock [wolves], until in 1847, when Mr. Thomas Cox brought a lot of strychnine to Salem. It was but a year after the Cox family settled in the edge of the Santiam valley, until the hair-raising howls of the bands of big wolves ceased."
The most specific account, recording use of strychnine in one area of what is now Douglas County, was in a letter written by Roselle Putnam in January 1852 (original spelling and punctuation retained): "The wolves in this country are very large and numerous there has been a great many of them killed this winter, in this neighborhood with strycknine, Charles put out upwards to thirty doses of it, and I suppose every one killed a wolf at least the physician from whom we got it said it woud – we have seen two that died near the house – notwithstanding the quantity of poison they have taken – they are still to be heard every night or two howling round us & one impudent fellow has been in the habit of coming every night to pick up the scraps about the house & even in the porch a couple of nights ago – we gave him a dose of poison and he has not been back since – they have never killed any of our cattle though they do frequently kil cattle & horses” [24].
Except for the account from Douglas County - which, compared to the Willamette Valley, was still "wilderness" in 1852 - the quotes above make it appear that the need for heavy use of strychnine was short-lived, because the nuisance animals were quickly eliminated. Such a conclusion seems to be supported by the lack of information on the subject in local newspapers [25]. In the Oregon press between 1846 and 1871, I found no mention of strychnine and only one item on predatory animals (a proposal to organize a "Marion County Society for the destruction of wolves, cougars and panthers" [26]). I found 18 news reports of livestock predators between 1872 and 1880, two of which were from far eastern Oregon where condors had never been known to occur. Seven of the reports mentioned strychnine, and four kills were made using dogs and guns; control methods were not listed in the other items. After 1880, news reports of strychnine use increased; most stories were about suicide and murder, but use for animal control was clearly increasing, particularly in eastern Oregon and Washington, and especially for ground squirrel control. For example, an 1893 item noted that county commissioners had awarded an eastern Washington pharmacist a contract to furnish 4,000 ounces of strychnine for squirrel control [27].
Obviously, newspapers and a few reminiscences can't tell the whole story of predator control in early Oregon. Still, a consideration of the numbers and distribution of the human population during the years that California condors might still have occurred in the region strongly suggests that strychnine was not a significant issue in the disappearance of the species.
In 1840 there were only 200 Caucasians - Americans and French-Canadians - in Oregon; in 1842, that number was unchanged until a wagon train with another 112 people arrived in the fall [28]. Each succeeding year brought additional immigrants, but by 1845 the white population of Oregon was still only 2,500, and by 1849 had not reached 9,000. Immigration continued, but was accompanied by a significant exodus to California during the "Gold Rush," so that the tally for the 1850 federal census was 12,000 Caucasians in the entire territory. In 1841, there had been no settlements south of the Salem area, and in 1850 there were still less than 2,000 people there, scattered in perhaps half a dozen small, widely separated settlements. Twenty-five percent of the total 1850 Oregon Territory population lived in urban areas [29].
Not only were there very few people in Oregon in the mid-1800s, and most of those town dwellers living in a very small portion of the territory, there were not that many livestock to protect. Cattle still numbered less than 20,000 in 1850, and there were only 5,000 sheep. The majority were located in the same small area in the northern Willamette Valley where most of the people resided, roughly present-day Portland south to Albany. Probably less than 3,000 cattle and 1,000 sheep were found south or east of there, and there were almost no livestock in the vast mountain area south of the Columbia River between Portland and the Pacific Ocean [30]. The last area in which condors were recorded in Oregon, the Umpqua River-Rogue River watersheds, in 1860 still had less than 4,000 residents; by 1900 there were fewer than 25,000 people scattered through some 8,000 square miles of rugged, mostly uninhabited wilderness. While the total human population of Oregon increased from 52,000 to 415,000 between 1860 and 1900, over half of the people lived in the Willamette Valley, the majority of them within the cities, themselves.
No condor is known to have been killed by strychnine in Oregon or Washington, but that doesn't entirely rule out the possibility that some succumbed after eating poisoned meat. From the limited record that has been pieced together, it appears that condors had become rare in the region long before strychnine came into use. There were still some condors in southwestern Oregon into the early 1900s. With more people, more livestock, and apparently more strychnine in that area in the last two decades of the 19th century, poisoning may have been more of a threat than at any time previous. Nevertheless, the odds of a condor being poisoned in that vast areas seems small.
California
Not having the early source of strychnine that was available to Oregonians, farmers and ranchers in California had to wait a little longer to have ready access to the poison. Reportedly the first shipment to California came as a mistake, resulting indirectly from the discovery of gold. Rosengarten and Denis, a Philadelphia company that had begun manufacturing strychnine in 1834, sent a cargo of it to a South American port. When word of the 1848 California gold discovery reached the ship, it was diverted to San Francisco and the strychnine was sold there [31]. Presumably other shipments soon followed, and by 1850 there were daily advertisements in California newspapers by druggists selling strychnine. How much was used for animal control in the early 1850s is unknown. There's no question that a lot of strychnine was in circulation; looking through the files of 15 California newspapers from 1850-1855, I found 26 records of strychnine use, including six murders, two attempted murders, 10 suicides, three malicious poisoning of dogs, one purposeful poisoning of horses, one pig poisoning, and one attempt to kill Indians suspected of stealing livestock. Also included was a record of Indians buying strychnine to poison arrow tips for squirrel hunting, and one of a Czech scientist who purposely poisoned himself, believing he had an antidote. He didn't.
The earliest accounts I have found of strychnine use for animal control in California were in 1854, one for ground squirrels alone, and one for both livestock predators and squirrels. Both observations were in the Los Angeles basin area. Carvalho wrote [32]: "The whole country of Southern California, especially in Los Angeles county, is infested with millions of ground squirrels, which destroy vegetation, and are great nuisances to farmers, as well as to the community; they domesticate themselves in houses, and I have seen them jump on the dinner-table, overturning tumblers, etc. The country is overrun with them; various methods have been suggested to destroy them, but without effect; the most successful, however, is strychnine--large quantities of which are imported into California, for this express purpose. This virulent and active poison, for this reason, becomes an important article of trade."
Nearby, Julius Froebel described activities in August on a ranch near Chino, California [33]: "One day I rode to the hills, on which our mules were grazing... In this ride I also passed through a part of the cattle belonging to the estate, which covered the hills for miles. In these herds, many are killed by the wild beasts - wolves, bears, and cuguars [sic]. The proprietors use great quantities of strychnine to destroy these, the effect of which I witnessed. As I was riding out one day, I met one of the people of the estate throwing about poisoned meat; and, on my return a few hours later, there already lay a dead wolf in the road. In the same manner the Colonel has tried to destroy the earth-squirrels, which, together with the owls and rattlesnakes, live in holes in the ground, and are here the greatest enemies to the farmer. The Colonel strews corn, poisoned with strychnine, before the holes of these little animals."
There were newspaper mentions of strychnine used for animal killing in 1856. That year, along with one murder, four suicides, and one purposeful poisoning of dogs, the newspapers carried reports of a grizzly bear killed with strychnine in Monterey County [34], a mountain lion killed near San Mateo [35], and ground squirrel poisoning in Santa Clara County [36]. In Mariposa County, grizzlies were thought to have killed 20 hogs, to which the news writer opined that "a little strychnine could not be applied to a better use than in destroying these dangerous visitors" [37]. A similar opinion was expressed by a Sacramento newspaper, this time concerning canids: "We have heard of several instances of mad dogs and coyotes recently, and our farmers and rancheros should have a good supply of strychnine on hand to administer to these worthless brutes, that have been allowed to increase until the nuisance has become insufferable" [38].
Newspaper reporting 1857-1859 showed use of strychnine similar to 1856. In the papers I reviewed were stories of four murders, three attempted murders, 38 suicides, seven failed suicide attempts, eight accidental poisonings of people, and five malicious poisonings of dogs and livestock. There were also two stories of Indians being poisoned, one apparently accidentally but the other purposely. Use of strychnine against animals involved mountain lions, ground squirrels, gophers, crows, and songbirds in orchards. Strychnine was believed to be ineffective against mountain lions in Trinity County [39], but near Santa Rosa four lions were killed after a rancher "secreted a lot of strychnine" into the carcasses of two sheep [40].
From the start, concern about ground squirrels and gophers damaging farm crops and rangeland seemed more important to Californians than predator control. By 1863, squirrel control legislation was being proposed because of growing problems in the Bay Area: "Many acres have been left uncultivated for years because of the multitude of ground squirrels in the vicinity, and the negligence of the neighbors in taking no measures to destroy them. Large fields of grain have been destroyed, and great numbers of valuable fruit trees killed by these little pests... Poison is the favorite method [of killing ground squirrels], and thousands of dollars are annually spent for phosphorus and strychnine, which are almost as necessary to the farmer in Santa Clara as his plow or his seed wheat. Phosphorus is cheaper, and therefore the preferred material; costs $3.50 per pound in San Francisco... Strychnine costs $4 per ounce, and one drachm of it is enough for a half peck of wheat" [41].
In addition to rodent concerns and a continuing litany of social mayhem (murders, suicides, domestic animal poisonings, accidental exposure to strychnine, poisoning of Indians), there were a number of news reports in the 1860s concerning predatory carnivores. A rancher in Siskiyou County lost 15 sheep and 20 lambs to wolves and mountain lions. "He set a bait with strychnine, and succeeded in killing a huge panther and three wolves" [42]. Strychnine wouldn't kill grizzlies that were destroying hogs and calves in Siskiyou County, so the rancher changed to "a mixture of broken glass in meat" [43]. Grizzly poisoning was successful in Walker Basin, Kern County, using strychnine in tallow balls inserted into pieces of fresh beef or mutton [44]. Mountain lions were dispatched with strychnine in Yuba County (two) [45] and Butte County [46]. A lion allegedly responsible for the deaths of six sheep and 39 lambs in Colusa County would not succumb to strychnine, but was finally caught in a leg-hold trap [47]. John Muir, writing from the Yosemite Sierra 13 August 1869, noted the apparently widespread practice of carrying strychnine, even in areas where it wasn't needed [48]: "I visited our old Yosemite camp ground on the head of Indian Creek, and found it fairly patted and smoothed down with bear tracks. The bears had eaten all the sheep that were smothered in the corral, and some of the grand animals must have died, for Mr. Delaney, before leaving camp, put a large quantity of poison in the carcasses. All sheep men carry strychnine to kill coyotes, bears, and panther, though neither coyotes nor panthers are at all numerous in the upper mountains. The little dog-like wolves are far more numerous in the foothill region and on the plains, where they find a better supply of food - saw only one panther track above eight thousand feet."
* * *
In the 1870s, suicides, murders, and accidental poisoning by strychnine remained big news. There were a few specific accounts of large carnivores killed with strychnine - a mountain lion killing lambs in Yuba County [49], three bears (presumably grizzlies, as that was not black bear habitat) disturbing beehives near San Bernardino [50], and a wolf (coyote?) killing lambs in Sonoma County [51] - and a general article regarding predators and sheep on the Tejon Ranch in Kern County [52]: "The grizzly does not usually attack sheep. The California lion, a strong but very cowardly beast, the wild cat, the fox, and the coyote, are the sheep's enemies. The last named is easily poisoned, with meal which has strychnine powdered over it. The others are hunted when the become troublesome." But the main poison stories involved ground squirrels and gophers.
In 1870: "Gophers and squirrels are very numerous, this year [in the San Francisco Bay area]... The boys are out in force, earning ten and five cents a head from the county treasury. Strychnine is most efficacious, but a large proportion is lost to the boys by dying underground" [53].
In 1871: "It is not generally known that killing gophers has become an important business in several counties in California, including San Joaquin. Says the Stockton Republican, 'There is a bounty of five cents on each scalp, and besides this the largest and best skins are readily sold for fifteen cents each. Several persons in the county have gone into the business systematically. Those most successful use wheat or other grain soaked in strychnine. On one ranch near this city, twenty-five hundred gophers were recently captured by using poisoned wheat. This number netted the captor at least $350. Large numbers of gophers are caught daily by boys, who generally use dogs and guns for that purpose'" [54].
In 1873, a farmer (apparently in southern California) killed ground squirrels in his grainfield by mixing strychnine, vinegar and sugar, and distributing it around the field in little cups. "During the warm parts of the day the rodents went to drink from these vessels by hundreds, and never had time to get to their holes any more; and so deadly is the poison, four bits worth of strychnine will lay out from three to four hundred rodents" [55].
By late summer 1873, farm groups were meeting around the State to discuss the problem, and in October 1873 a "squirrel law convention" was convened, to draft legislation compelling landowners to control squirrels on their property [56]. Various ordinances were eventually passed, but penalties for noncompliance were eventually declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court [57].
Gopher control seemed to lose impetus after the 1870s, but poisoning ground squirrels with strychnine continued unabated into the 20th century, as did poisoning coyotes. I found several late 19th century reports of mountain lions and bears being killed by strychnine, but none after 1900.
* * *
As noted previously, newspaper accounts and occasional journal entries can't tell the complete story of strychnine use on the Pacific Coast during the 19th century. On the other hand, newspapers were the principal means of communicating local events in pioneer times, and - although the coverage was uneven - every aspect of human events was covered to some extent. Also, these 19th century newspapers were refreshingly open in their reporting - there was no shame in reporting a bear, mountain lion, or condor killing; in fact, the larger the mammal or the wider the wingspan, the more likely it was to make the news. Lacking the concrete, readily evaluated data we expect today, I think it's worthwhile to compare these scattered but on-the-spot records against the stories about poisons and predators that developed later.
The zoologists of the 1850s who visited California, Oregon and Washington were mostly associated with the War Department surveys, assessing potential cross-country railroad routes. In none of their reports was there mention of birds killed by poisons [58], but there were brief comments on the use of strychnine to kill mammals:
"Formerly [the wolf] was quite abundant in the vicinity [Nisqually Plains, Washington], much to the detriment of the sheep of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company, but, of late years, owing to the persuasive influence of strychnine, they together with the wolf-like Indian dogs, have become quite scarce" [59].
"On the Columbia well dried, good [fox] skins can be readily purchased for 25 cents apiece, and in the way of trade are even bought by the storekeepers for much less. They are principally taken in traps or killed with strychnine" [60].
"They [California ground squirrels] are very fine eating, and formerly sold well in San Francisco markets, but since strychnine has been used to kill them, no one will buy them for fear of being poisoned" [61].
These comments by the Railroad Survey zoologists correlate well with the history of strychnine use in the 1850s, as outlined above: i.e., strychnine was established in limited areas of western Washington and western Oregon, and was only beginning to be used in California. Yet, in 1859, Alexander Taylor wrote: "The Condor is often killed by feeding on animals, such as bears and cattle, when poisoned with strychnine by the Rancheros--the poisoned meat kills them readily. The rancheros have very little fear in California of their depredations on young cattle and stock, though it has been known within my knowledge for five or six Condors to attack a young calf, separate it from its mother, and kill it; the Californians also say they are often known to kill lambs, hares and rabbits. But the cattle owners here have no such dread of them as the Haciendados of Chile have of the Southern Condor" [62].
I've described Alexander Taylor's predilection for mixing fact and fancy in unpredictable and confusing ways, making almost everything he wrote slightly suspect. The paragraph quoted above is a good example: are we to accept the statement about strychnine, while ignoring his description of a gang of condors killing a calf, and also killing lambs, hares, and rabbits?
Between 1853 and 1860, Taylor published a dozen or more notes and articles on condors; other than that cited above, only one mentioned poison [63]: "A short time ago quite a number of condors were found dead by the vaqueros of the Sur ranch in this county (Monterey), from the effects of eating the meat of a bear poisoned with strychnine.""a friend of ours" This seems like a straightforward observation, and perhaps one made by Taylor, himself. However, it is the last sentence in a long paragraph about reporting what Taylor proclaimed in 1859 to be something that "has been known within my knowledge;" i.e., the attack on a calf by a group of condors. "Six or seven or the birds had joined together to separate a calf from its mother, and having got it some distance off, succeeded in pecking to death with their powerful beaks, nothwithstanding the constant attempts of the dam to drive them away. The habits of our condor are precisely those of Chili and Peru, and though often stated to the contrary by bookmen, are distinctly different from the Cathartes, which never attack a living animal." Because the "friend's" information is clearly erroneous, and because a significant loss of condors seems not to have been reported anywhere else, one wonders if this was an actual event, or more of Taylor's blending of miscellaneous bits of information.
Accurate or not, this was the only specific mention of condor poisoning Taylor made in print. Yet - in context with the calf killing incident - it appears to have been the source of his later, more inclusive statement that condors are "often killed by feeding on animals...poisoned with strychnine." His were the first statements linking condors and strychnine, and until 1890 (see below) he was the only person to cite a specific instance of condor poisoning. In fact, every reference to condors and strychnine between 1860 and 1890 can be traced back to Taylor. J. G. Cooper, in his 1870 "Ornithology of California," quoted Taylor directly, including the alleged calf killing [64]. "A history of North American birds," published in 1874 [65], not only quoted Taylor's statement on poison word for word, but erroneously attributed Taylor's remarks to Colbert A. Canfield, a reliable condor observer! H. W. Henshaw, in California in 1875, noted that "opportunities for an acquaintance with this Vulture were most brief and unsatisfactory, and were limited to seeing two or three individuals warring on the wing in the mountains." "As is well known, this bird is easily killed by strychnine, and as this poison has been in almost constant use for a term of years in the destruction of wild animals, it seems highly probable that great numbers of these birds have suffered a like fate from eating the carrion" Yet, and after acknowledging receiving some of his information from Taylor, he wrote: [66]. He never saw a condor feeding on a carcass, poisoned or otherwise - in fact, may not have personally seen a condor until 1884 [67] and only specifically mentioned seeing one carnivore, a grizzly, that had died of poison. In his report on the mammals seen in 1875, he made only general comments about the reported deaths from strychnine of coyotes, gray foxes, grizzly bears, and California ground squirrels [68].
Charles Bendire, in his 1892 "Life histories of North American birds," used Taylor as one of his sources of condor information, although he did not quote Taylor directly on the subject of poisons [69]. Of the apparent significant decrease in condor numbers, Bendire said that "poison so far has been the principal agent." He gave no details, but outlined the reasons why he thought poisoning of condors had become so significant: "Stockraising has increased enormously in southern California during the past twenty years, and these fastnesses [i.e., "the minor mountain ranges running parallel to the Sierra Nevada," the backcountry presumed to be the home of the condors] have been completely overrun by stockmen to find pasturage for their flocks during the hot summers when everything is dried up in the valleys. Necessity compelled this invasion of the retreats of numerous predatory carnivora, like the grizzly bear, the panther, lynx, and the prairie wolf. These, as a matter of course, preyed on the calves and flocks of sheep that were to be found everywhere in the mountains at that time, to be had for the taking, and they naturally enough committed a great deal of damage. The simplest and certainly the safest way for the stockmen to get rid of such undesirable neighbors was to bait them with poisoned carcasses. This means was resorted to almost everywhere, and generally with considerable success. The Vultures, too, with their keen sight and scent, found many of these, to them, tempting baits, and being sociable in disposition many of these birds were destroyed by this means, so that at this time comparatively few are said to be left."
The gist of the above statement appears to be that Bendire - who, it is worth noting, may never have spent any time in condor habitat - believed: (1) there had been substantial increases in California livestock in the previous 20 years (presumably, 1870 to 1890); (2) these increases had depleted the lowland food supply to the extent that in summer livestock had to be moved from the valleys to the higher hills to find forage; (3) this move brought the livestock into closer contact with predatory mammals, and increased the predation; (4) more strychnine was used in these "minor mountain ranges"; and (5) these ranges being the home of the condors, more condors succumbed to poisoned livestock carcasses. This explanation takes considerable liberties with both the history of California and the life history of the condor. First, while there were substantial increases in sheep numbers near the middle of the 1870-1890 period, and increases of beef cattle near the end, the total number of livestock in California in 1890 was less than in 1870 [70]. Second, the significant movement of livestock to higher elevations was not into the "minor mountain ranges" paralleling the Sierra Nevada; to escape the effects of the long, rainless California summer, livestock had to be moved into the high mountain areas, mostly well above 6,000 feet elevation. To repeat John Muir's comment [71], "neither coyotes nor panthers are at all numerous in the upper mountains. The little dog-like wolves are far more numerous in the foothill region and on the plains, where they find a better supply of food - saw only one panther track above eight thousand feet." Grizzlies were found in the highest mountains at times, but were generally much more numerous at lower elevations [72]. The perceived need for strychnine would certainly not have been any greater in the mountain meadows than in the lower elevations at other times of year. Finally, the high country occupied by livestock in summer was not "the fastnesses" that were the principal habitat of the California condor. While condors occasionally ventured into the higher mountains (but apparently very seldom above 8,000 feet), almost all their nesting habitat and a large percentage of their feeding range was below 5,000 feet elevation. In other words, as a scenario for large losses of condors to strychnine, Bendire's description fails on all counts.
Curiously, Bendire's next two paragraphs noted that "within the past few years these birds have again commenced to hold their own," and that in some areas "they do not seem to be decreasing" and are even "still abundant," and "may in time regain their former numbers." This reversal of fortune, he said, was "undoubtedly due to the breaking up of the large cattle ranches and their conversion to small farms. Poison, which has been resorted to on most of the large stock ranches to kill the carnivora, has certainly almost exterminated the California Vulture as well, and in more than one locality, where they were formerly abundant, their very perceptible decrease is, in my opinion, due to this cause" [73]. Again, his understanding of California history and habitat was at fault; certain lowland valleys were developing more formal agriculture, but in 1890 California still had vast areas of rangeland that supported vast herds of livestock. From the written record, there is no indication that the use of strychnine was decreasing in 1890; the use for ground squirrels and coyotes probably was increasing. If, in fact, strychnine poisoning had been a significant cause of the condors' decrease in numbers, then there is no reason to believe it was suddenly less significant.
* * *
After 1890, Alexander Taylor was seldom quoted by name; Bendire became the chief authority, and statements very similar to those included in his 1892 publication have been repeated over and over, even up to the present time. However, there were dissenting voices. William Leon Dawson was the first [74]: "We note that there is a widespread opinion that the disappearance of the Condor was occasioned by the use of poison. The cattle-men, frenzied by the depredations of the coyotes, poisoned their beef carcasses. The coyotes ate and were killed. Ergo, the Vultures, who feasted on them, must have perished by scores. It sounds very plausible, but I am not persuaded. Evidence is lacking to show that the Vultures did die of poison. The question should have been very easy to determine. Vultures lingered about their fallen prey and gorged to repletion. If they fell, they must have fallen in their tracks, or at least in the open. But there is no record of such destruction. There are two other alternatives. A Condor's stomach can stand a great deal of abuse. Ptomaines, for example, have no terror for it. Again, a bird has unusual facilities, up to a certain point, for 'unswallowing' food which disagrees with it. In such fashion I think our friend has succeeded in escaping the wholesale punishment so generously meted out for it - on paper. Perhaps I am wrong, but here at least is something to think about."
Carroll DeWilton Scott was the next to raise questions [75]: "Practically every writer about the condor lays its dramatic exit to poisoning. Owners of cattle and sheep poisoned carcasses to kill coyotes, bears and cougars and the great birds died.
"This tale may have originated with Bendire because he makes much of it. But he cites no evidence for his statements. Early naturalists often filled the gaps in their knowledge with stories from pioneers and some of the stories were fantastic. But the printed word has more lives than a tomcat. As far as I know, nobody who has repeated the poison story has ever offered a shred of evidence. Since the poison explanation is a theory, the burden of proof is certainly with the theorist.
"Biological evidence is against the theory. The condor is a vulture and, presumably, like the turkey vulture, is immune to poisons or can get rid of them by disgorging. It is the habit of condors, as well as buzzards, to linger at the banquet table for hours, even days, either on the ground or it neighboring trees. A cattleman in the Sespe, in the 'good old days,' once walked among a crowd of gorged condors and almost could have kicked several if he had wished. Mrs. Eugene Percy of Fillmore came upon a group of condors at a carcass, one afternoon a few years ago, that were so full they scurried under the trees, before they could take wing, like a flock of turkeys. Is it not reasonable to suppose that if somebody had ever laid eyes on poisoned condors he would have been sufficiently impressed with the spectacle to leave a record of it?
Both Dawson and Scott were naturalists and bird enthusiasts, and in no way apologists for livestock interests or the poison manufacturers. Neither was Harry Harris, who up to 1940 had made the most comprehensive review of California condor literature ever undertaken [76]: "Dr. Cooper's casual reference to the decimation of vultures by poison (strychnine) during the cattle era of California history recalls that this was formerly so universally accepted as a fact that no writer, scientific or popular, ever deemed it necessary to cite supporting evidence. The rancheros poisoned meat to check the numerous mammalian predators, and thus the countless herds of horses and horned cattle inhabiting the range of Gymnogyps acted as a check rather than a benefit to the bird, as it also fed on the poison. This was a logical enough conclusion prior to a general knowledge of the toxic resistance possessed by vultures, and it is not strange that the long accepted dictum has only recently been challenged. Nor is it strange that the literature is so entirely barren of any eye witness corroboration of the lethal effect the poison was claimed to have had on the birds. Only a single reference is citable in this connection, and it rests on evidence too questionable to warrant discussing. The inference to be drawn from this, as well as certain other testimony, is that decimation of the species by poison was merely assumed to account for a seemingly sudden decrease in its numbers."
Finally, Carl Koford's major field and library study of California condors in the 1930s and 1940s summed up his understanding of strychnine poisoning in a few short sentences [77]: "The only reported 'observation' which indicates that a condor may have died from eating poisoned bait is given in a mimeographed pamphlet by Fry (1926:2). He claims that in 1890 he saw two dead condors which a sheepherder had found near a poisoned carcass."
"In southern California, ranchers poison coyotes and other carnivores by putting out chunks of pork containing capsules of strychnine. It is conceivable that occasionally a condor eats one of these baits."
"To a limited degree, strychnine poisoned bait is used to poison squirrels. This poison acts very fast so that a high proportion of the squirrels die outside their burrows where they are accessible to carnivorous birds."
* * *
The questioners of the strychnine scenario were too sanguine concerning the dangers of poisons to vultures. It was generally assumed that, due to their food habits, vultures would be less vulnerable to contaminants than some other species. Now, we know that both New World and Old World vultures can get lethal doses of strychnine. But how often, and how many? In all the journals, manuscripts, government correspondence, books, magazines, and newspapers I have reviewed over the past 40 years, I have only found eight references that cite or allege a specific instance of condor poisoning with strychnine. One is almost certainly not an actual incident, and another is a death by strychnine not related to killing livestock predators.
1. Alexander Taylor's 1856 note that "quite a number of the condors were found dead ... from the effects of eating the meat of a bear poisoned with strychnine" [78].
2. "Some person, through accident or design, some few days since poisoned a pet vulture belonging to Dr. Canfield. The poison used was strychnine, and was probably administered in a piece of meat. The vulture was about eight months old, and measured across its wings, from tip to tip, 8 feet 9 1/2 inches" [79]. This 1864 incident was not a condor death related to killing predators, but I include it because it does show that condors can be killed with strychnine. This may have been a very concentrated dose of the poison, and not necessarily what condors would be exposed to in the wild.
3. "On South Eel river, Humboldt county, Mr. Adams recently poisoned a bird of the vulture species which measured nine feet across the wings, four feet from beak to tail and eight inches from crown to tip of beak" [80]. I haven't been able to find anything more about this 1880 incident, but the details certainly make it sound authentic.
4. Walter Fry, a Sequoia National Park naturalist, gave the first non-hearsay report of condor deaths from poison directly linked to predator poisoning. He doesn’t name the poison, but it would almost certainly have been strychnine at that time [81]:“While I was stopping at Huron, Fresno Co., California, during January 1890, Mr. Manuel Cardoza, a sheep herder, brought in two beautiful dead Condors. These birds had died from eating poison. Coyotes had killed two of his sheep and he had poisoned the carcasses with the hope of killing the coyotes; but instead of getting the animals he got the two big birds that had been feeding on the dead sheep. Cardoza said that he had noticed several of the Condors around the poisoned sheep the day before and upon going out in the evening found the dead ones a few yards from the bait.”
5. C. Hart Merriam wrote in 1917: "Frank Hubbard, who has a large stock ranch in Isabel Valley on the east side of Mt. Hamilton, told me that during his boyhood Grizzlies and Condors were both common in the Mt. Hamilton region. For a long time the stockmen believed that Grizzlies and Condors like Turkey Buzzards were immune to poison, but later found that both were easily killed by poisoning sheep carcasses" [82]. This may be hearsay, but has an authentic feel.
5. From Mayne Reid: "There are times when certain beasts of prey, more especially wolves and coyotes become pests to the ganaderias or grazing farms; and means have to be adopted for thinning their numbers. An old ganadero, whose testimony I can trust, tells me of his having employed strychnine to poison them. He did so by chopping up the flesh of several bullocks, and inspissating it with the poison. It was scattered here and there over his pastures, at places known to be frequented by the 'vermin.' On going one day to inspect the envenomed lure, he found not only a number of coyotes lying lifeless on the ground, but half a dozen large vultures, that had gorged themselves on the 'spiced beef.' The birds were not quite dead, but only stupefied, and looking, as he said, like pigeons that had been made drunk on wheat steeped on whiskey.
"He had no ill-will toward the vultures, and would have allowed them to live; but it was too late. The strychnine had already done most of its work; and after fluttering a while over the ground, now getting up, now tumbling down again, and staggering about like so many drunken men, one after another at length lay prostrate upon the sward, turning stiff, almost as soon as they had ceased kicking!" [83].
This report sounds authentic, and yet I think it isn't. Mayne Reid (1818-1883) was an Irish author of children's adventure books. He apparently was fascinated by vultures, and they figure in many of his books, including two entire chapters (43 pages) discussing the natural history of New World vultures in "The Boy Hunters" [84]. He was well-read on the subject of California condors, and quoted most of the information (both fact and fancy) available at that time. In the 1869 article quoted from above, he even refuted some of the earlier erroneous information from Alexander Taylor, David Douglas, and others (although he never amended the false information that continued to be printed in the many later editions of "The Boy Hunters").
Reid lived in the eastern United States 1838-1849, and again 1867-1870, but as far as I can tell never got closer to the Pacific Coast than Veracruz, Mexico. Most of his books were written while living in London in the 1850s and 1860s. The chances are slim that he actually knew any "old ganadero" (rancher, or sheep herder) that could tell him anything about condors. I suspect he crafted this article the same way he said he wrote his children's books: "While undertaking no responsibility for the truth of his story, the author of the 'Boy Hunters' claims consideration for the truthfulness of the materials out of which it is constructed... He makes bold to indorse the genuineness of the scenery and its natural facts. He is not conscious of having taken any liberty, for the sake of effect, with the laws of nature... Neither plant nor tree, bird nor mammal, has been pressed into service, beyond the limits of its geographical range..." [85]. In short, he is saying that he didn't write anything that couldn't be true! And as further support for the probability that the "old ganadero" was just a literary prop used to tell a story, Reid identified other intelligence that was imparted to him by this person "whose facts I can trust." For example, in refuting Douglas' report that condor eggs were black, Reid's informant allegedly told him "the eggs are not black, but of a yellowish white color, with a band of brown blotches around the large end, with other smaller specks distributed over the whole surface. This account corresponds exactly with the description given of an egg voided by a 'hen' vulture of the California species, in the Jardin des Plantes of Paris." Yes, it does; it is the description of the egg of an unknown species of vulture provided by James Trudeau to Thomas M. Brewer, and erroneously published in Brewer's 1857 "North American Oology" as that of the California condor [86]. Reid's trusted informant also was said to have told him that condors had more than one young per nesting; that young condors were taken from their nests by Indians, fattened up, then eaten at certain festivals; and that "many" condors were "annually disposed of" by Indians who sold them to "museums and Zoological gardens in different parts of the world." I think Mayne Reid's trusted informant shouldn't be trusted about his strychnine story.
6. On 1 March 1950, three condors (two adults, one immature) were found near a Fish and Wildlife Service strychnine drop bait site east of Bakersfield, California. Strychnine-laced fat baits had been placed around a sheep carcass, to kill coyotes. One adult condor was dead near a coyote carcass, the other two birds were weak and unable to fly. The living birds were provided with horsemeat and water at the site from 2 March to 6 March, when the adult was able to fly away. The immature continued to run around the area, and came for food and water, but didn’t fly for some time. It finally disappeared on 18 March. The predator control people searched for it, but couldn’t find it. They assumed it flew away.
Analysis of the dead bird was done by the Bureau of Chemistry, California Department of Agriculture. There was only a trace of strychnine in its digestive tract. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that it probably wasn’t strychnine poisoning because of the small amount of strychnine found, and because the trappers didn’t think the birds exhibited signs of strychnine poisoning [87]. Despite the official findings, it still looks to me as if the condors were poisoned, probably by feeding on a coyote that had eaten a strychnine-laced bait.
7. Quail hunters found a “sick” adult condor 2 January 1966 in Alisos Canyon near Los Alamos, Santa Barbara County, California. They reported their observation to the Department of Fish and Game, and on 3 January 1966 a game warden found the bird “huddled under an oak tree, unable to fly and (it) seemed to be a very sick bird. (The warden) placed the bird in a burlap sack...and the bird was taken to Griffith Park Zoo... Upon arrival at the zoo the Condor was examined by a veterinarian and was found to be suffering from strychnine poisoning. The Condor was placed in a padded, darkened cage and treated (treatment unspecified) for several days. On Jan. 12 the Condor was taken to the locality where it was found and released. It seemed to have recovered from the effect of the strychnine.”
“Mr. Louis Dourdet, owner of the ranch, has stated that he poisoned these (calf) carcasses in an effort to relieve himself of a serious predator damage to his livestock and poultry. He bought 4 ounce of strychnine at a drug store in Solvang, cleaned the carcasses...and sprinkled 1/8 ounce in each carcass” [88].
A news release from the Department of Fish and Game said “the diagnosis of strychnine poisoning as the most probable cause of the condor’s illness was made by Dr. Nathan Gale and Dr. Charles Sedgwick of the Los Angeles Zoo, who treated the bird, and Eldridge G. Hunt, leader of the Department’s Pesticides Investigations project” [89]. Fecal samples from the condor did not show any strychnine, but that wouldn’t be a very good test. No one did any other tests, so strychnine was only “probable.” Apparently a number of the ranchers in the area were using strychnine-laced carcasses at the time. A popular summary of this incident was published in "Audubon Magazine" [90].
* * *
No one wrote about strychnine poisoning condors until Alexander Taylor penned one sentence on the subject in 1856, and one more sentence in 1859. In the first instance, he reported that he had heard of "quite a number" of condors dying in one poisoning incident; three years later, without any further specifics, he reported that condors were "often killed" by strychnine. It was 20 years later that another condor was thought to have died from strychnine (in northwest California), and another ten years after that when Walter Fry saw two condors in the San Joaquin Valley that he presumed were killed by strychnine. Assuming that Taylor's incident actually occurred, and that "quite a number" meant more than two or three condors, the more or less confirmed loss from strychnine in the 19th century was less than a dozen birds. Yet, even before the second report was published, Henshaw had declared - with no other sources than Taylor - it "highly probable that great numbers" of condors had died from strychnine. Two years after the third report, Bendire had dropped Henshaw's "highly probable" qualifier, and declared "poison so far has been the principal agent," elaborating that "many of these birds were destroyed by this means, so that at this time comparatively few are said to be left." Bendire quoted a number of condor observers not interviewed by the earlier writers, but none volunteered any information on poisons. Alexander Taylor's penchant and talent for hyperbole notwithstanding, I doubt he could have imagined his two sentences on strychnine would be parlayed into a major indictment of the poison that has survived 150 years of public perception.
Even if Taylor's writing style had not made many of his pronouncements suspicious, his sources of information were limited. His principal written reference was John James Audubon's 1839 "Ornithological Biography" [91]. (Taylor quoted extensively from David Douglas and John Kirk Townsend, but only as Audubon had previously included them in his book.) Other than Audubon's compilation of condor fact (and fancy), Taylor had only local informants and the stories they provided him. He seems not to have traveled far from Monterey during his years there (1848-1860), and his personal realm of condor reference included little beyond Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. Audubon did not write about poisons, so any knowledge Taylor had of the use and effects of strychnine beyond those two counties would have been meager. He would have had little or no knowledge of what was happening in most of California. There is no way his knowledge could be construed as giving a true picture of any aspect of condor distribution, numbers, or threats to survival.
* * *
This lengthy review of the 19th century record of strychnine use in the Pacific states reconfirms, I think, that the early 20th century writers were correct: it is highly unlikely that strychnine poisoning was a major cause of California condor mortality. The timing and magnitude of strychnine use, the history of livestock in California, and the life history of condors do not correlate well with the statements of alleged losses. The fact that nothing really new or more substantive was ever added to the original 1856 and 1859 remarks of Alexander Taylor further weakens the case. Most troublesome to me, however, is the lack of actual records. I and others have said it before: birds the size of a turkey with a nine feet wingspan, lying sick or dead in a field, would have attracted attention. In the second half of the 19th century, they would have been reported in the newspapers.
Strychnine as a cause of California condor mortality was a reality, and almost certainly there were more deaths than the few that "made the news." The threat of strychnine to condors probably increased after 1915, when the federal government (through the Bureau of Biological Survey) implemented major predator and rodent control activities throughout the West. If it was not the major reason for decreases in the condor population, it was an additional problem at a time when the condors were facing a number of other threats. Any losses to poison would have further destabilized a species already in trouble.
Chapter Notes
1. I think I showed clearly in evaluations in 1978 and 2004 that the 20th century writers were a lot closer to the truth about condor poisoning than were those from the late 19th century. See pages 21-22 in: Wilbur, S. R. 1978. The California condor, 1966-76: a look at its past and future. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North American Fauna Number 72. Also, pages 209-224 in: Wilbur, S. R. 2004. Condor Tales: What I learned in twelve years with the big birds. Gresham, Oregon: Symbios.
2. Letter to John McLoughlin 31 December 1839 from Pelly, Colvile and Simpson. Explanatory footnote to 18 November 1843 letter from McLoughlin to Hudson's Bay Company, London. Page 164 in: Rich, E. E., and W. K. Lamb (editors). 1943. The letters of John McLoughlin from Fort Vancouver to the Governor and Committee. Second Series, 1839-44. Toronto, Ontario: The Champlain Society.
3. Anonymous. 1871. The fur trade. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 10 November 1871. The Hudson's Bay Company destroyed furs that had been ruined by trappers baiting their traps with strychnine. "By this means they are very successful in taking game, and the skins when brought for sale are to all appearances as good as if the animal had been captured in the usual manner; but after awhile the fur falls off from the effects of the poison."
4. Letter of 18 November 1843 letter from John McLoughlin to Hudson's Bay Company, London. Page 164 in: Rich, E. E., and W. K. Lamb (editors). 1943. The letters of John McLoughlin from Fort Vancouver to the Governor and Committee. Second Series, 1839-44. Toronto, Ontario: The Champlain Society.
5. Pages 13-14 in: Maris, P. V. 1923. An agricultural program for Oregon. Oregon Agricultural Extension Service Bulletin 367. Corvallis, Oregon.
Pages 39-40 in: Gibson, J. R. 1985. Farming the frontier. The agricultural opening of the Oregon country 1786-1846. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press.
6. Gibson 1985 op. cit., page 103.
7. Gibson 1985 op. cit., pages 119-122. Also: Page 344 in: Wilkes, C. 1856. Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. Volume IV. New York, New York: C. P. Putnam & Co.
8. Pages 258-259 in: Marshall, W. I. 1911. Acquisition of Oregon and the long-suppressed evidence about Marcus Whitman. Seattle, Washington: Lowman & Hanford Company.
9. Minto, J. 1905. Wild animals in Oregon. Oregon Teachers Monthly 10(4):193- 195.
10. Pittock, S. J. Undated. Thomas Cox. 5 page manuscript. Salem, Oregon: Willamette Heritage.
11. Pittock, op. cit.
12. Geer, R. C. 1880. Occasional address for the year 1847. Transactions of the Annual Re-union of the Oregon Pioneer Association 7:32-42.
13. McNish, J. 1841. Poisoning wolves. The Farmers' Register 9(10):597-598.
14. Anonymous. 1855. The beasts of the prairie. Putnam's Monthly 5(29):526-532.
15. Page 485 in: Conyers, E. W. 1905. Diary of E. W. Conyers, a pioneer of 1852 now of Clatskanie, Oregon. Transactions of the Annual Re-union of the Oregon Pioneer Association 33:423-515.
16. As late as 1843, there were still only 215 white males in all of Oregon: Page 6 in Heider, D., and D. Dietz. 1995. Legislative perspectives, a 150-year history of the Oregon Legislatures from 1843 to 1993. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Historical Society Press.
17. Maris 1923, op. cit.; also, pages 976-977 in: Carman, E. A., H. A. Heath, and J. Minto. 1892. Special report on the history and present condition of the sheep industry of the United States. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office..
The original Willamette Cattle Company agreement, signed 13 January 1837, is in the Oregon State Archives at Salem. Although the cattle drives were meant to break the livestock monopoly held by the Hudson's Bay Company in the Northwest, Company manager John McLoughlin advanced one-third of the money used by the Willamette Company for the livestock purchase.
18. Pages 107-109 in: Gaston, J. 1911. Portland, Oregon, its history and builders. Volume I. Chicago, Illinois: S. J. Clarke Publishing Company.
19. Gaston 1911 op. cit.
20. Thornton, J. Q. 1875. History of the provisional government of Oregon. Pages 43-96 in: Constitution and quotations from the register of the Oregon Pioneer Association. Salem, Oregon: E. M. Waite, Book and Job Printer.
21. Arthur, J. 1887. A brief account of the experiences of a pioneer of 1843. Transactions of the Fifteenth Annual Reunion of the Oregon Pioneer Association, pages 96-104.
22. Quoted on page 75 in: Bowen, W. A. 1978. The Willamette Valley, migration and settlement of the Oregon frontier. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press.
23. Minto 1905 op. cit.
24. Pages 255-256 in: Hargreaves, S. 1928. The letters of Roselle Putnam. Oregon Historical Quarterly 29(3):242-264.
25. By the time strychnine would have been in regular use in western Oregon, there were several local papers (“Oregon Spectator” 1846, “Oregonian” 1850, “Oregon Statesman” 1851). Also, Northwest news was being regularly reported in the main California newspapers (e.g., “California Star” 1847, “Daily Alta California” 1849, “Placer Times” 1849).
26. Letter from "W. P.," Oregon Spectator (Oregon City, Oregon Territory), 20 February 1851.
27. Anonymous. 1893. Spokane has a sensation. The Dalles (Oregon) Daily Chronicle, 28 April 1893.
28. Thornton 1875 op. cit., page 45.
29. Bowen 1978 op. cit., pages 13-16.
30. Bowen 1978 op. cit., pages 79-88.
31. Page 325 in: Young, S. P., and E. A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves of North America, Volume 1. Washington, D. C.: American Wildlife Institute. The source of the story was a 30 June 1939 letter from Dr. James C. Munch (Temple University School of Pharmacology), in the archives of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
32. Page 250 in: Carvalho, S. N. 1857. Incidents of travel and adventure in the far West with Col. Fremont's last expedition. New York, New York: Derby and Jackson.
33. Page 548 in: Froebel, J. 1859. Seven years' travel in Central America, northern Mexico, and the far West of the United States. London, England, Richard Bentley.
34. Anonymous. 1856. The California condor. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 16 May 1856.
35. Anonymous. 1856. A California lion killed by strychnine. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 6 August 1856.
36. Anonymous. 1856. Farmers' pest. Daily Union (Sacramento, California), 11 April 1856.
37. Anonymous. 1856. Grizzlies. San Joaquin Republican (Stockton, California), 20 September 1856.
38. Anonymous. 1856. Mad dogs and wolves. Daily Union (Sacramento, California), 13 March 1856.
39. Anonymous. 1857. California lions. Daily Union (Sacramento, California), 9 April 1857.
40. Anonymous. 1859. Four panthers killed in Sonoma County. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 21 March 1859.
41. Anonymous. 1863. Legislation relative to the destruction of ground squirrels. Daily Alta California (San Francisco, California), 21 January 1863.
42. Anonymous. 1861. Panthers and wolves. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 1 March 1861.
43. Anonymous 1868. Yreka items. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 9 September 1868.
44. Anonymous. 1867. How to poison grizzlies. Daily Alta California (San Francisco, California), 17 May 1867.
45. Anonymous. 1863. Lions. Daily Union (Sacramento, California), 13 May 1863.
46. Anonymous. 1864. Panthers in Butte. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 27 July 1864.
47. Anonymous. 1867. Caught at last. Daily Union (Sacramento, California), 20 March 1867.
48. Muir, J. 1911. My first summer in the Sierra. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company.
49. Anonymous. 1872. Catamount killed. Daily Union (Sacramento, California), 8 March 1872.
50. Anonymous. 1878. [No headline: bears and beehives]. Daily Union (Sacramento, California), 1 June 1878.
51. Anonymous. 1879. [No headline: wolf at Santa Rosa]. Daily Union (Sacramento, California), 22 January 1879.
52. Anonymous. 1872. Herding in California. Friends' Review 26(7):99-100.
53. Anonymous. 1870. [No headline: squirrel and gopher control]. Daily Alta California (San Francisco, California), 2 September 1870.
54. Anonymous. 1871. Gopher slaughter. Daily Alta California (San Francisco, California), 15 June 1871.
55. Anonymous. 1873. The way to get them. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 28 July 1873.
56. Anonymous. 1873. A discussion about squirrels. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 20 August 1873.
Anonymous. 1873. The squirrel law convention. Pacific Rural Press (San Francisco, California), 18 October 1873.
57. Pages 2157-2158 in: Deering, J. H. 1895. Digest of the reports of the Supreme Court of California, Volumes One to One Hundred Inclusive. Volume II. San Francisco, California: Bancroft-Whitney Company.
58. Newberry, J. S. 1857. Report upon the zoology of the route. Report of explorations and surveys to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. Volume VI, Part 2:35-110. Washington, D. C.: Beverly Tucker.
Heermann, A. L. 1859. Report upon the birds collected on the survey. Report of explorations and surveys for a railroad route from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, 1853-56. Volume X, Part 4:29-80. Washington, D. C.: Beverly Tucker.
Cooper, J. G. 1860. Report upon the birds collected on the Survey. Chapter I, Land birds. Reports of explorations and surveys, to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, made under the direction of the Secretary of War, in 1853-55. Volume XII, Book 2:140-291.Washington, D. C.: Thomas H. Ford, Printer.
59. Page 111 in: Suckley, G. and G. Gibbs 1860. Report of Dr. Geo. Suckley, U. S. A., and Geo. Gibbs, Esq. Reports of explorations and surveys, to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, made under the direction of the Secretary of War, in 1853-55. Volume XII, Book 2:108-139.Washington, D. C.: Thomas H. Ford, Printer.
60. Suckley and Gibbs op. cit., page 113.
61. Page 81 in: Cooper, J. G. 1860. Report upon the mammals collected on the Survey. Reports of explorations and surveys, to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, made under the direction of the Secretary of War, in 1853-55. Volume XII, Book 2:73-107.Washington, D. C.: Thomas H. Ford, Printer.
62. Page 20 in: Taylor, A. S. 1859. The great condor of California--Part II. Hutching's California Magazine 4(1):17-22.
63. Anonymous. 1856. The California condor. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 16 May 1856.
64. Page 500 in: Cooper, J. G. 1870. Ornithology. Sacramento, California: Geological Survey of California. In fairness to Cooper, he did question Taylor's report of condors flying with prey in their talons, and disputed Taylor's claim that dark-headed birds were female condors, rather than immatures.
65. Page 342 in: Baird, S. F., T. M. Brewer, and R. Ridgway. 1874. A history of North American birds. Volume III, Land birds. Boston, Massachusetts: Little, Brown and Co.
66. Page 265 in: Henshaw, H. W. 1876. Report on the ornithology of the portions of California visited during the field season of 1875. Annual report upon the geographical survey west of the 100th meridian in California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona and Montana. Appendix JJ:224-278. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.
67. As early as 1872, Henry Henshaw reported a bird in Utah "believed to be this species" [Explorations and Surveys West of the One Hundreth Meridian 5(3):428], and the 1875 records from California could be construed as his own. However, he later claimed not to have personally seen a living California condor until 1884: Henshaw, H. W. 1920. Autobiographical notes. Condor 22(1):8.
68. Henshaw, H. W. 1876. Notes on the mammals taken and observed in California in 1875. Pages 525-532 in: Report of the Secretary of War to the Second Session of the Forty-fourth Congress: appendixes to the report of the Chief of Engineers, Volume II, Part III. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.
69. Pages 158-159 in: Bendire, C. 1892. Life histories of North American birds. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.
70. An excellent, fully documented history of livestock in California is presented in: Burcham, L. T. 1982. California range land. Center for Archeological Research at Davis, Publication Number 7. University of California, Davis.
71. Muir 1911 op. cit.
72. Pages 18-26 in: Storer, T. I., and Tevis, L. P. Jr. 1955. California grizzly. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
73. Bendire op. cit.
74. Pages 1733-1734 in: Dawson, W. L. 1923. The birds of California. San Diego, California: South Moulton Company.
75. Scott, C. D. 1936. Who killed the condors? Nature Magazine 28(6):368-370.
76. Pages 41-42 in: Harris, H. 1941. The annals of Gymnogyps. Condor 43(1):3-55.
77. Pages 130-131 in: Koford, C. B. 1953. The California condor. National Audubon Society, Research Report Number 4. New York, New York.
78. Anonymous. 1856. The California condor. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 16 May 1856.
79. Anonymous. 1864. A pretty pet! San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 21 December 1864.
80. Anonymous. 1880. State news in brief. San Francisco (California) Bulletin, 5 April 1880.
81. Fry, W. 1926. The California condor - a modern roc. The Gull (Golden Gate Audubon Society) 8(5):1-3.
82. C. H. Merriam California journals 1917 (pp. 31-32, 16 September 1917). Merriam Collection, Bancroft Library (Berkeley, California), BANC MSS 83/129c.
83. Reid, M. 1869. The vultures of America, a monographic sketch of these foul-beaked birds. Onward, Mayne Reid's Magazine. May 1869, pages 371-378.
84. Pages 377-420 in: Reid, M. 1853. The boy hunters, or adventures in search of a white buffalo. London, England: David Bogue.
85. Reid 1853 op. cit., Preface.
86. Brewer, T. H. 1857. North American oology. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution.
87. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service memorandum 24 March 1950, from H. Nelson Elliott (Sacramento, California) to Clarence Cottam (Washington, D. C.), subject: California Condor incident, Kern County, California.
88. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service memorandum 21 January 1966, Riley D. Patterson (Bakersfield, California) to State Supervisor (Sacramento, California), subject: Condor poisoning in Santa Barbara County.
89. California Department of Fish and Game (Sacramento, California) press release, 22 January 1966, subject: Poison suspected in condor illness.
90. Borneman, J. C. 1966. Return of a condor. Audubon Magazine 68(3):154-157.
91. Pages 240-245 in: Audubon, J. J. 1839. Ornithological Biography, or An account of the habits of the birds of the United States of America. Edinburgh, Scotland: Adam & Charles Black.