Justification After removal of all surviving birds into captivity in 1987, an intensive conservation programme involving reintroduction and release of captive-bred birds has led to a tiny but increasing population of this species in the wild. The species consequently qualifies as Critically Endangered.

Family/Sub-family Cathartidae

Species name author (Shaw, 1898)

Taxonomic source(s) AOU checklist (1998 + supplements), Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993)

Identification 117-134 cm. Huge and unmistakable. Black with white wing-linings and silvery panel on upper secondaries. Head naked and orange/red. Immatures with black head and underwing mottled dark. Soars on horizontal wings with primaries curled up. Hints Only likely to be seen near reintroduction sites.

Population estimate

Population trend

Range estimate (breeding/resident)

Country endemic?

44

increasing

203,000 km²

Yes

Range & population Gymnogyps californianus declined rapidly throughout its historic range from British Colombia to Baja California during the 20th century and reportedly disappeared from outside California, USA, in 1937². The population had dropped to an all-time low of just 22 birds by 1981, and in 1987, the species became extinct in the wild when the last of the six wild individuals was captured to join a captive-breeding recovery programme involving 27 birds^2,4. The population increased to 223 birds by August 2003, comprising 138 in captivity, and 85 reintroduced in California and northern Arizona¹⁰. By December 2006, there were 130 wild birds at five release sites^15,19, including at least 44 that were over six years old (the age at which breeding commences at the very earliest)¹⁴. Breeding in the wild resumed in 2002, and by September 2005 17 attempts had been recorded, from which four offspring were still surviving¹⁴. The reintroduction programme continues and has expanded its geographic coverage, with six birds released into the Sierra de San Pedro Martir in Baja California, Mexico in 2002⁹. A new release site in Baja was established in October 2003, and in December 2003 birds were released at another new site in California at the Pinnacles National Monument. Releases in New Mexico have been abandoned due to lack of funding, and release priorities have shifted to identifying sites and partnerships in southern Sierra Nevada, California¹³. The regular movements of the Arizona birds are confined to Coconnino County (Arizona) and Kane County (Utah), although a handful of individuals have wandered north to Flaming Gorge (Wyoming) and localities in Colorado before returning to the Grand Canyon area. The California birds occur regularly in San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Ventura, Kern, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterrey, San Benito, and probably Santa Cruz counties. The Baja California birds are largely confined to the Sierra de San Pedro Martir¹⁵, where efforts are ongoing to increase the population to an anticipated carrying capacity of c.20 pairs²¹. The first chick born in Mexico for over 75 years hatched in April 2007. It is hoped these birds will range widely enough to be effectively connected with birds in the southern USA, and a recent success was recorded when a bird from the Baja population was seen in San Diego County in April 2007. Currently just seven chicks have fledged in the wild since reintroductions began and no second generation birds have yet matured to breeding age, hence no population can be deemed sustainable and without a ban on lead-shot within the condor's range none are likely to become so.

Ecology: Its range includes rocky, open-country scrubland, coniferous forest and oak savanna⁶. Cliffs, rocky outcrops or large trees are used as nest sites⁶. It scavenges on the carcasses of large mammals. Released birds have become increasingly independent in finding food and may range more than 400 km from release sites^1,4.

Threats The drastic population decline during the 20th century is principally attributed to persecution and accidental ingestion of lead-shot from carcasses, resulting in lead poisoning. Lead poisoning remains a threat for released birds and has caused many fatalities and resulted in the treatment of many more birds^7,17; 9 of 13 birds released at the Pinnacles National Monument in California had to be recaptured and tested for lead poisoning after feasting on a field of squirrel carcasses shot by hunters using lead-shot in 2006. It is particularly prone to the threat of lead-poisoning owing to its longevity and delayed onset breeding strategy, and given the distances it travels to forage, meaning lead can build up in the blood to dangerous levels over many years having been ingested over a broad area¹⁸. Shooting and accidental poisoning continue to be the principal threats to condors and at current levels threaten the long-term sustainability of reintroduced populations²², but lead ammunition is being banned within the species's range in California and there are increasing indications that the federal government will gradually phase out the use of lead across the U.S. Publicity and awareness raising campaigns appear to have successfully reduced persecution. Ingested anthropogenic material was recently responsible for the deaths of two nestlings and strongly implicated in a number of other deaths²³. The dead condors were found to have swallowed glass fragments, wire, plastic cartridge cases etc²³. Puppet-reared birds may be more prone to exhibit problematic human-oriented behaviour such as tameness and vandalising property than parent-reared birds⁸. In the early 1990s, a number of captive-reared birds were lost owing to collisions with power-lines, but this behavioural problem has been addressed using a conditioning programme with fake power poles¹⁴. The spread of West Nile virus is not anticipated to be a problem for the species as most birds are vaccinated¹⁴. Overall survival of released birds has been high⁴, although it is estimated that rates of mortality in the wild still exceed sustainable levels⁸.

Conservation measures underway CITES Appendix I and II. A large-scale, integrated captive-breeding and reintroduction programme, managed by The Peregrine Fund (at the World Center for Birds of Prey), Los Angeles Zoo and San Diego Wild Animal Park, is preventing extinction in the wild. The success of the scheme has seen an increase from one chick hatched in 1988 to an annual hatch of 25-30 birds in recent years¹⁶. Oregon Zoo has been approved as the fourth captive condor breeding institution, and received six pairs of condors in 2003. The genetic diversity of the population has been maintained through careful distribution and representation of founder genotypes at each captive-breeding facility and reintroduction site. Consequently the current population retains 99.5% of the likely heterozygosity of a wild panmictic population²⁰. "Aversion training" to avoid powerlines and humans is practised⁶. A total of 154 condors were released into the wild between 1992 and 2003¹⁶. Clean carcasses are provided for reintroduced birds to help prevent lead-poisoning, and community education programmes aim to minimise persecution^1,2,4. A huge step has been taken towards eliminating the threat of lead-poisong with the signing in 2007 of the "Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act" which requires the use of non-lead ammunition within the species's range in California and was implemented on 1 July 2008. The Arizona Game and Fish Department is now distributing safer lead-substitute bullets free of charge to hunters within the foraging range of the condors, and similar programmes are being initiated in California¹⁴. Publicity measures include a website and near-weekly condor articles in local newspapers¹¹.

Conservation measures proposed Continue to monitor population trends. Continue the recovery plan to achieve two disjunct, self-sustaining populations of 150 individuals comprising 15 breeding pairs⁴. Identify further potential release sites in southern New Mexico^1,2,6. Resume release programme in Mexico. Maintain and increase the productivity of the captive population^1,6. Continue releases of captive-bred birds^1,6. Maintain suitable habitat^1,6. Continue and expand information and education programmes^1,6. Continue supplying alternative lead-free ammunition to deer hunters. Advocate strongly for a ban on lead-shot and lobby the Fish and Game commission to ensure legislation is passed.

References Collar et al. (1992). 1. Anon. (1998d). 2. Kiff (1990). 3. Mesta (1996). 4. Peregrine Fund Newsletter 29 (1998): 2-3. 5. W. D. Toone in litt. (1994). 6. USFWS (1996a). 7. Anon. (2001). 8. Meretsky et al. (2000). 9. USFWS (2003). 10. L. Kiff in litt. (2003). 11. D. Cooper and J. Grantham in litt. (2003). 12. B. K. Palmer in litt. (2003). 13. Chu et al. (2003). 14. L. Kiff in litt. (2005). 15. L. Kiff in litt. (2006). 16. Wallace (2004). 17. Parish et al. (in press). 18. Hunt et al. (in press). 19. Graham (2006). 20. Ralls and Ballou (2004). 21. Wallace (2005). 22. Cade (2007). 23. Mee et al. (2007).

Further web sources of information

Audubon California Major Programmes

Audubon WatchList

The Peregrine Fund - California Condor Restoration - Conservation Projects

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Recovery Plan

Text account compilers Phil Benstead (BirdLife International), Jeremy Bird (BirdLife International), Stuart Butchart (BirdLife International), Matt Harding (BirdLife International), Isabel Isherwood (BirdLife International), Andy Symes (BirdLife International), Helen Temple (BirdLife International), Joe Tobias (BirdLife International), David Wege (BirdLife International)

Contributors Dan Cooper (California Audubon Society), Jesse Grantham (Texas Audubon Society), Lloyd Kiff (The Peregrine Fund), Bruce Palmer (US Fish & Wildlife Service), W. D. Toone

IUCN Red List evaluators Jeremy Bird (BirdLife International), Stuart Butchart (BirdLife International), Andy Symes (BirdLife International)

Recommended citation BirdLife International (2009) Species factsheet: Gymnogyps californianus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 9/2/2010

This information is based upon, and updates, the information published in BirdLife International (2000) Threatened birds of the world. Barcelona and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, BirdLife International (2004) Threatened birds of the world 2004 CD-ROM and BirdLife International (2008) Threatened birds of the world 2008 CD-ROM. These sources provide the information for species accounts for the birds on the IUCN Red List.

To provide new information to update this factsheet or to correct any errors, please email BirdLife

To contribute to discussions on the evaluation of the IUCN Red List status of Globally Threatened Birds, please visit BirdLife's Globally Threatened Bird Forums