SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A lone gray wolf has wandered across the Oregon border into California in what wildlife officials hailed Thursday as the historic return of a species not seen in the state in more than 80 years.

Biologists tracked the wolf's position to a few miles south of the state line in Siskiyou County, the California Department of Fish and Game said.

A global positioning system collar was placed on the wolf in February. Since then, the 2½-year-old male has wandered more than 300 miles from its original location. Its movement into California was widely anticipated as it approached the border just before Christmas.

"Whether one is for it or against it, the entry of this lone wolf into California is an historic event," said Department of Fish and Game Director Charlton H. Bonham, acknowledging the debate over the spread of wolves in the western U.S.

The GPS data put the wolf in California as of Wednesday. Officials said they would only provide general information about its location, since gray wolves in California are designated a federally endangered species.

The last confirmed wild gray wolf in California was killed in 1924 by a trapper protecting livestock. Conflict between wolves and ranchers across the West remains a key point of tension as reintroduction efforts in recent decades have led to the species' spread.

Biologists said they don't know if the wolf will remain in California or wander back to Oregon or on to Nevada. They said the wide wandering from its pack in Oregon was typical behavior for a young male wolf.

The fish and game department expects other wolves to arrive in California at some point as part of a slow wolf migration linked to the 1995 introduction of a Canadian gray wolf pack to Idaho and areas around Yellowstone National Park. Wolves first re-entered Oregon in 1999.

Multiple wolves in California could lead to new packs becoming established, or they could simply wander on.

"If the gray wolf does establish a population in California, there will be much more work to do here," Bonham said.

While the wolves in California will be under federal protection, state regulators said they have no wolf management plan and no intention to actively reintroduce the animals to the state.

Lost Lobos? They can have them!

Any chance we can get some of them headed to NYC?

Maybe they'll make him governer....Maybe he'll eat Diane Fienswine, or Nancy Palousey....The possiblities are interesting....

Hope he stays there.

hope he eats ashley judds dog
right off the end of the leash
wolf lovin beotch!

quote:

"If the gray wolf does establish a population in California, there will be much more work to do here," Bonham said.

Just a thought, but if the wolf finds suitable habitat to live in and has plenty of furry animals to eat.......then what in the HECK work is there for the state to do?

quote:

Originally posted by don444:
Hope he stays there.

He'll be black bear poop if he hangs around too long, the mule deer population is in decline...

quote:

"Whether one is for it or against it, the entry of this lone wolf into California is an historic event," said Department of Fish and Game Director Charlton H. Bonham, acknowledging the debate over the spread of wolves in the western U.S.

Mr. Bonham should be fired; of course he's "for it". Which game population is he supposed to be managing anyway?

Damn, I'm sick of this lunacy. Introducing timber wolves into the lower 48 was done for one reason and one reason only, to reduce the number of hunters.

After reducing hunting opportunies and therefore the number of hunters, then the gun confiscation begins.

You laugh? I'm a conspiracy nut? Read about Weimar Germany and Hitler's rise to power.

Look at the modern day U. K. They are already there.

What will you do when the jack boots are at your doorstep?

Become a life member of the NRA. I did.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Yale, You hit the nail on the head. I attended meetings here in Idaho, before they forced wolves on us, where the pro wolf lovers stated just that. To " return the balance of nature and eliminate man [hunting] from the equation." More wolves=less game. Less game= shortened seasons or, better yet, no hunting. Therefore, why does anyone need a gun??

Exactly. Also here, this is the antis ultimate wet dream.

quote:

Originally posted by DUK:
Exactly. Also here, this is the antis ultimate wet dream.

Couple of instance posted in Wild und Hund of wolves killing entire herds of sheep. The Germans seem surprised. Also, a hunter fined for dispatching a terminally injured wolf. Court claims he should have taken it to a vet. Vet says, it was beyond hope of recovery. Didn't matter. And we wonder why the world is so fucked up.

Grizz

If the wolf was terminally injured he wasn't smart enough to walk away and let nature take its course.

quote:

hope he eats ashley judds dog
right off the end of the leash
wolf lovin beotch!

quote:

Damn, I'm sick of this lunacy. Introducing timber wolves into the lower 48 was done for one reason and one reason only, to reduce the number of hunters.

After reducing hunting opportunies and therefore the number of hunters, then the gun confiscation begins.

It's not hard to understand your line of thinking. Wolf advocates are, as a group, generally not sympathetic to hunting and other "traditional" land uses such as ranching. That said, I have a hard time believing that the introduction of wolves was part of an overall plan to eliminate hunting and eventually confiscate guns. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and, in fact, hunters are a minority of gun owners in the USA. I don't know the exact number but something like 90 million Americans own firearms; only 10 and 15 million of them are hunters. If every hunter in the USA were to give it up there would still be 70+ million firearms owners and enthuasists and gun confiscation would still be an impossible task.

There's no question that the population explosion of imported wolves has devastated elk and deer populations in parts of the West and the expansion of native wolves is definitely affecting the deer numbers certain areas of the Great Lakes states. But the areas most affected by wolves are remote and the overall number of hunters suffering the consequences is still relatively small. Wolves are rapidly expanding thier range but it's not likely that large numbers of them will become established (and tolerated) in the more densely populated states in the East and South where many millions of hunters live.

A hard-core wolf hugger gets all teary-eyed talking about "restoring the balance of nature" and wolves being an "essential part of the wilderness that has been missing for too long." Even avid hunters have been known to romanticize about wolves. (Isn't it funny how they seldom, if ever, actually live in the wolf-infested areas?) To me, this is code for "we want to put things back the way there were before the evil white man destroyed Eden." It's nothing more than an impossible, idealistic dream. Wolves are peripheral. They've been absent for nearly a century and the wilderness is still just as wild. On the flip side, you can put a wolf pack in Central Park but that won't make it a wilderness. There never was a "balance of nature," just cycles of boom and bust between the predators and prey. With any luck we'll see the wolf boom go bust.

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:

quote:

"Whether one is for it or against it, the entry of this lone wolf into California is an historic event," said Department of Fish and Game Director Charlton H. Bonham, acknowledging the debate over the spread of wolves in the western U.S.

Mr. Bonham should be fired; of course he's "for it". Which game population is he supposed to be managing anyway?

Damn, I'm sick of this lunacy. Introducing timber wolves into the lower 48 was done for one reason and one reason only, to reduce the number of hunters.

After reducing hunting opportunies and therefore the number of hunters, then the gun confiscation begins.

You laugh? I'm a conspiracy nut? Read about Weimar Germany and Hitler's rise to power.

Look at the modern day U. K. They are already there.

What will you do when the jack boots are at your doorstep?

Become a life member of the NRA. I did.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Comparing the reintroduction of wolves to Hitler's rise of power is the most delirious, demented, & deranged thing I've ever heard of! I don't remember Mr. Bonham ever saying "I'm for these wolves" so why put words in his mouth? Oh, that's right...you're the expert that thinks the decline in pheasants in PA is a direct result of squeezing water out of hay with big rollers!

For a New Year's resolution you should look into a lobotomy.

quote:

It's not hard to understand your line of thinking. Wolf advocates are, as a group, generally not sympathetic to hunting and other "traditional" land uses such as ranching. That said, I have a hard time believing that the introduction of wolves was part of an overall plan to eliminate hunting and eventually confiscate guns. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and, in fact, hunters are a minority of gun owners in the USA. I don't know the exact number but something like 90 million Americans own firearms; only 10 and 15 million of them are hunters. If every hunter in the USA were to give it up there would still be 70+ million firearms owners and enthuasists and gun confiscation would still be an impossible task.

Dear Bigasanelk:

I have to disagree.

The hunting crowd in my experience is much more active in supporting the second amendment than the general population with a pistol under their pillow.

Using my gun club as an example, we are involved in the Eddy Eagle NRA program in teaching youngsters to shoot and hunt. The average joe gun owner doesn't go to those lengths in support of constitutionally protected gun ownership.

I'll stand by my argument: hunters are the number one pro-second amendment group of gun owners.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Dear Moose Drool:

You said: "Comparing the reintroduction of wolves to Hitler's rise of power is the most delirious, demented, & deranged thing I've ever heard of! I don't remember Mr. Bonham ever saying "I'm for these wolves" so why put words in his mouth? Oh, that's right...you're the expert that thinks the decline in pheasants in PA is a direct result of squeezing water out of hay with big rollers!

For a New Year's resolution you should look into a lobotomy."

With that line of attack, I will now call it like I see it.

You're a PETA plant here on the AR Forum.

I knew I could draw you out. Actually, it was quite easy.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Dear Moose Drool:

Is this one of your little beauties?

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dp...inois-roads-20111230

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

PETA plant?

You better get back to squeezing hay and writing your mainfesto!!

They manner by which you spew this crap you have got to be a lawyer...

quote:

Originally posted by Moose_drool:
PETA plant?

You better get back to squeezing hay and writing your mainfesto!!

They manner by which you spew this crap you have got to be a lawyer...

Dear Moose Drool:

Formerly practicing lawyer.

Sorry, the Saul Alynski "Rules for Radicals" pretty much bounces off me.

I've called you out as a complete fraud. You are no more a hunter than Nancy Pelosi is.

Prove me wrong.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by Grumpa:
Yale, You hit the nail on the head. I attended meetings here in Idaho, before they forced wolves on us, where the pro wolf lovers stated just that. To " return the balance of nature and eliminate man [hunting] from the equation." More wolves=less game. Less game= shortened seasons or, better yet, no hunting. Therefore, why does anyone need a gun??

Dear Grumpa:

Thanks for the support.

I didn't like the looks of this whole wolf introduction thing going back to the mid-1990's.

Initially, we as gun nuts win big with Heller and McDonald, then the right to carry laws are expanded with state reciprocity. These are great pro-gun victories.

Still, you have to watch these anti-gun/anti-hunter big government socialists. They sneak up on you with the wolf thing, and lo and behold, a reduction in game animals, lessened hunting license revenue and hunter malaise ensues.

This is a war ladies and gentlemen, and there is only one way to fight it: support the second amendment.

I'm just as fanatical about all the rest of the constitution by the way.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Wait a cotton pickin minute here... Did,nt they pass some little anti fur resolution in Beverly Hills not too long ago? Reckon I,m just another toothless hillbilly and I could be wrong..
Would,nt that put that wolf in danger of getting into the wrong area, and opperating illegally? Cause the last time I checked, wolves were still wearing fur...
And we all know that wolves operate by a strict code of ethics, culling the sick and wounded only, and remembering at all times that humans are off the menu. Or was that a line of bullshit people bought watching too many Disney cartoons?.
Me personally, I,m all for wolf hunting, wolf trapping, wolf fur made into hats and such, and out dated and unpopular ideas like reality.
Sticking your head in the clouds and wishing everything was better does,nt make it so.
I,ve said it before, I,ll say it again.
Divide and conquer is still a pretty effective modus operandi. Works for wolves. Works for the anti-gun dinks. If you pay attention, you,ll notice both types of critter care more about their objectives than their ethics.
Theres an old saying, those who don,t know history are doomed to repeat it. I have,nt yet seen that one proven wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Muttly:
Wait a cotton pickin minute here... Did,nt they pass some little anti fur resolution in Beverly Hills not too long ago? Reckon I,m just another toothless hillbilly and I could be wrong..
Would,nt that put that wolf in danger of getting into the wrong area, and opperating illegally? Cause the last time I checked, wolves were still wearing fur...
And we all know that wolves operate by a strict code of ethics, culling the sick and wounded only, and remembering at all times that humans are off the menu. Or was that a line of bullshit people bought watching too many Disney cartoons?.
Me personally, I,m all for wolf hunting, wolf trapping, wolf fur made into hats and such, and out dated and unpopular ideas like reality.
Sticking your head in the clouds and wishing everything was better does,nt make it so.
I,ve said it before, I,ll say it again.
Divide and conquer is still a pretty effective modus operandi. Works for wolves. Works for the anti-gun dinks. If you pay attention, you,ll notice both types of critter care more about their objectives than their ethics.
Theres an old saying, those who don,t know history are doomed to repeat it. I have,nt yet seen that one proven wrong.

Dear Muttly:

Now that is logic par excellence. Thank you.

I used to work for a furrier from late 1985 until late 1986. Coyote makes a beautiful men's coat, and wolf should be just as nice.

Unfortunately, dog fur doesn't last like beaver or mink; only about 5-6 years.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

That wolf was collared in Wallowa County, OR and tracked 730 miles across the state before arriving in California. It has never been seen since it was collared. (Hopefully its just the collar stuck on somebody's vehicle bumper.) It is still unknown if the wolf is alone.

The area where the wolf crossed into California south to Alturas is wide open and a target rich environment for wolves. I suspect they will live long and prosper. The small elk herds in the Marbles and north eastern California can only suffer with the introduction of wolves.

The odds of drawing an elk tag in my lifetime are slim at best and with wolves taking some down there will be no draw at all.

Our deer herds in Northern California are under pressure from protected lions, wolves will only make the problem worse. Last year a cat took down a very nice 3X3 about 50 yards from the house. The last thing I want is to hear the howl of a wolf off my deck.

Young wolfie is just headed to Hollywood to audition for a new running of "Wolfen".

On another note, I had to break up a dog fight three weeks ago. Two bitches in heat, one at 145 pounds, one at 130 pounds. Got really nasty. I am 6-4 and weigh 240 and was overpowered. All the time I was thinking if they turned on me I would be a dead man, no way would I be able to get away from them. After about 10 minutes I finally got a big rope on the neck of the bigger one and choked her to a fence post. Penned the dogs, went to the farm store and bought the strongest cattle prod they had and stopped at the gun store on the way back and bought two big cans of Griz Bear spray. Now I am ready.

Reason for all the above is a big wolf is a better fighter than a big dog and after my experience with the dog fight I will say that a big wolf or two certainly can kill a big man if they so desire.

quote:

Originally posted by WoodHunter:
Young wolfie is just headed to Hollywood to audition for a new running of "Wolfen".

On another note, I had to break up a dog fight three weeks ago. Two bitches in heat, one at 145 pounds, one at 130 pounds. Got really nasty. I am 6-4 and weigh 240 and was overpowered. All the time I was thinking if they turned on me I would be a dead man, no way would I be able to get away from them. After about 10 minutes I finally got a big rope on the neck of the bigger one and choked her to a fence post. Penned the dogs, went to the farm store and bought the strongest cattle prod they had and stopped at the gun store on the way back and bought two big cans of Griz Bear spray. Now I am ready.

Reason for all the above is a big wolf is a better fighter than a big dog and after my experience with the dog fight I will say that a big wolf or two certainly can kill a big man if they so desire.

Dear WoodHunter:

I have zero first hand experience with wolf fighting, but our recently deceased Rotweiler, Riley, at 170+ lbs. sure knew how to play tug of war with a 1.5 inch diameter rope. It was better than curling weights.

I saw some video of those lovely imported Canada timber wolves taking down a pregnant cow elk in Idaho, and they looked like about 150+ lbs. to me. A 240 grain .44 magnum bullet at 1500 fps ought to about do it.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

I just read a piece in the Redding Searchlight that the wolf in now wandering around eastern Shasta County. Check out this Picture

Thats sweet. "Thats the real issue, to make sure he does,nt become a killer."
Holy Cow!!! How exactly do you keep a carnivore from becoming a killer? Correct me if I,m wrong, but is,nt that one of the main items on their to do list?
Course, thats only if they get hungry, so I,m probably way off track here.
Thanks for posting that link, JBout.
Entertataining, and just a tiny bit disturbing all at the same time..

A little more information on the California Wolf posted on the California DFG web site

The area he is in is a target rich environment.

So, just curious, if for whatever reason all of the wolves, or most of them, were killed in the lower 48, would there be another reintroduction?

More information from Shasta County. Tough Times

It seems that the news report indicated that wolves have been absent from California since 1924. What a sham.

I believe that wolves need to be restored to their ancestral areas within the lower 48. We could start by trapping and relocating some of those Canadian Wolves here in Idaho and relocating them to Beverly Hills. I'm sure that in the distant past there was a wolf pack in those lovely hill areas. San Franciso, Seattle, Portland, and San Diego should also be blessed with these cute furry little cuddlers for the children to see.

Why stop there? Chicago, New York, and Cleveland should share in the blessings of a roving wolf pack. Central Park would be an ideal release sight as well as the Golden Gate Park in San Fransico. Why should these fine cities miss out on the opportunities of hearing the howling of wild wolves?

After all when the idiots in charge released the wolves in Idaho where did they release them? In the winter range of the Bighorn Sheep so that the first taste of Idaho wild game would be a Bighorn. Brilliant. Idaho's sheep numbers have dropped along with Moose and Elk.

Let me decide what is best for you. Right?

quote:

Originally posted by TEANCUM:
It seems that the news report indicated that wolves have been absent from California since 1924. What a sham.

I believe that wolves need to be restored to their ancestral areas within the lower 48. We could start by trapping and relocating some of those Canadian Wolves here in Idaho and relocating them to Beverly Hills. I'm sure that in the distant past there was a wolf pack in those lovely hill areas. San Franciso, Seattle, Portland, and San Diego should also be blessed with these cute furry little cuddlers for the children to see.

Why stop there? Chicago, New York, and Cleveland should share in the blessings of a roving wolf pack. Central Park would be an ideal release sight as well as the Golden Gate Park in San Fransico. Why should these fine cities miss out on the opportunities of hearing the howling of wild wolves?

After all when the idiots in charge released the wolves in Idaho where did they release them? In the winter range of the Bighorn Sheep so that the first taste of Idaho wild game would be a Bighorn. Brilliant. Idaho's sheep numbers have dropped along with Moose and Elk.

Let me decide what is best for you. Right?

Dear Teancum:

We have a serious overpopulation of white tail deer in Fairmont Park in Philadelphia and in the surrounding suburbs.

Give me a mating pair of wolves, I'll release them in Rittenhouse square and we'll see what happens.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

quote:

Originally posted by TEANCUM:
It seems that the news report indicated that wolves have been absent from California since 1924. What a sham.

I believe that wolves need to be restored to their ancestral areas within the lower 48. We could start by trapping and relocating some of those Canadian Wolves here in Idaho and relocating them to Beverly Hills. I'm sure that in the distant past there was a wolf pack in those lovely hill areas. San Franciso, Seattle, Portland, and San Diego should also be blessed with these cute furry little cuddlers for the children to see.

Why stop there? Chicago, New York, and Cleveland should share in the blessings of a roving wolf pack. Central Park would be an ideal release sight as well as the Golden Gate Park in San Fransico. Why should these fine cities miss out on the opportunities of hearing the howling of wild wolves?

After all when the idiots in charge released the wolves in Idaho where did they release them? In the winter range of the Bighorn Sheep so that the first taste of Idaho wild game would be a Bighorn. Brilliant. Idaho's sheep numbers have dropped along with Moose and Elk.

Let me decide what is best for you. Right?

I believe all parks in the DC metro and surrounding area should be first...followed in week two by all parks in every major metro area where there are >3 million inhabitants in the metro statistical area. And protect the wolfs from any removal measures for 15 years. I imagine wolfs will be delisted and eradicated by act of the government within 12 months.

My very good friend varmint hunts full time all over the southwest. He swears he has seen red wolf in eastern California/Nevada area. He is not a looney or braggert. Of course, though he returns there often, he states he has no intention of taking one if he sees one.. .to prove all his doubting friends wrong.

Who knows? I do know there is a reason wolves were shot out of the lower 48 years ago, and why they are the stuff of legend in European tales...bad news. Period.

While it has been 50 years (where did the time go?) I jumped a lone wolf in the scrub brush northeast of Bridgeport, California.

While some folks from Wyoming feel Californians should not be allowed to breath and take up space and deserve what we have, I have to admit I just watched the wolf run.

Guys, though I happen to agree with Chris ("Yale")on this topic, let's keep our facts straight.

Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) is sort of the father of all radical movements of the past 50 years in the US. He is renowned for his gradual, some might say sneaky, approach to revolution, as witness the following from Wikipedia:

"Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a "mass army" that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength."

Sounds a lot like tactics of the PETA and pro-wolf advocates, doesn't it? As well as the anti-gun groups.

Believe me, they do read their Alinsky, including his "Reveille For Radicals" and "Rules For Radicals." It might behoove more of us to do so as well, since this is very relevant context to this dispute.

Norm

quote:

Originally posted by Yale:

quote:

Originally posted by Moose_drool:
PETA plant?

You better get back to squeezing hay and writing your mainfesto!!

They manner by which you spew this crap you have got to be a lawyer...

Dear Moose Drool:

Formerly practicing lawyer.

Sorry, the Saul Alynski "Rules for Radicals" pretty much bounces off me.

I've called you out as a complete fraud. You are no more a hunter than Nancy Pelosi is.

Prove me wrong.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis