1 year later, lone gray wolf keeps on prowl in Calif.
By The Associated Press
Published: Sunday, Jan. 6, 2013, 8:34 p.m.
FRESNO, Calif. — He doesn't like busy Interstate 5 or eating cattle, at least so far. He gets along with his distant cousins the coyotes, likes to swim and roams a lot — an awful lot — around the northernmost reaches of the Golden State.
A week or so ago, California's lone gray wolf passed his one-year anniversary as a transplant resident with the same technical accoutrements some people possess: a Twitter account and an online site about his travels.
“What strikes me about him is that when I talk to the general public, they show remarkable knowledge about his movements, much more than some world events,” said Richard Callas, a senior environmental scientist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Wolves captivate public interest.
“No matter how you feel about wolves, when you see one, it's amazing,” he added.
Far larger than coyotes, wolves were feared and hunted to near-extinction in the United States before being protected by the Endangered Species Act. They were reintroduced in the Northern Rockies in the mid-1990s, and some migrated into Idaho and Oregon, where they have quickly reproduced.
California's wolf is known as OR-7 because he was the seventh in Oregon to be fitted with a GPS tracking collar. While most wolves stay within 100 miles of where they were born, OR-7 proved different: He trotted 1,000 miles from northeast Oregon to California, then more than 2,000 since arriving.
Scientists speculate the 3½-year-old is looking for a mate or a new pack, though they know both prospects are remote. He is believed to be the first of the predators to roam within the state's boundaries since 1924, when the last gray wolf was killed by a trapper intent on making the West safe for cattle.
“The reality is OR-7 is not likely to find a mate in California. He'll likely pass on without successfully reproducing,” said Karen Kovacs, whose job as wildlife program manager for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife has been focused lately on this one animal.
His presence has prompted action by one state and two federal agencies that now have to figure out how to manage the species if others follow in his 5-inch paw prints. Federal wildlife agencies had not considered California a part of the original Western states wolf recovery plan.
The state is considering a petition that would list the wolf as endangered, as he is federally in California. Killing the wolf means a $100,000 federal fine.
OR-7 has aroused concerns among residents of the northeastern counties who fear the wolf will kill livestock, although officials say he has not so far.
The California Cattlemen's Association opposes listing the wolf on California's endangered species list based on a single animal wandering into the state.
Despite the high-tech gadgetry hanging from his neck, sightings are rare. Since July he has been hanging out mostly in Tehama County, and wildlife officers don't want the public to know exactly where. Cattle ranchers, however, are warned if he gets too close or stays too long in one area.
“When we believe he's reached a threshold, when he's hanging around in one area too long, ... we have felt compelled to knock on doors and tell them to be a little more vigilant,” Kovacs said. .
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Nightmare’ killing of 2 Iraqi youths detailed during military hearing
- NYPD Twitter photo request fails as hashtag becomes bash-tag
- Blue Angels accused of misconduct
- Hearing to determine fate of sergeant accused of killing 2 deaf Iraqi boys
- FCC nears vote on ‘net neutrality’ rules
- Gas processing plant explosion chases residents of small Wyoming town
- Budget cuts may ground fabled U-2s
- Rulings on child porn cases divided
- 126 years later, ship located in Calif. bay
- Precautions lack year since fatal blast at plant
- Ga. lifts limits on guns in public