Idaho again wants to land choppers in wilderness

Idaho again wants permission to land helicopters in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness to dart wolves and outfit them with radio collars.

The U.S. Forest Service denied a similar request in 2006 to allow choppers into the federally protected wilderness outside of established airstrips.

Environmental groups argued such landings, other than to save human lives, disrupt the pristine wilderness. They also fear information from tranquilizing and collaring wolves could lead to more-aggressive wolf killing across Idaho.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game wildlife managers insist trapping wilderness wolves on foot has been only marginally successful. By combining wolf-collaring missions with helicopter big game counts that occur every winter, they hope to more successfully track packs that roam some of the nation's most-remote territory.

"We would tranquilize them in the middle of winter, when nobody else is around," Deputy Fish and Game Director Jim Unsworth said Thursday. "We don't even land, really. We put a toe in. It takes about 15 minutes, once you've got a dart in them."

His plan calls for choppers to touch down up to 20 times in the 2.4-million-acre area to collar up to 12 wolves.

"Some information is known about wolf packs within the state of Idaho, however, extent of range, number of animals, and population dynamics between packs are not well understood, especially in wilderness," the state argues in its request to the Forest Service.

Idaho wouldn't use helicopters to kill any wolves in the wilderness, Unsworth said, adding he'd like to eventually expand landings to the 1.3-million-acre Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness on the Idaho-Montana border.

Helicopters have landed in Idaho wilderness to rescue people, notably in 2007, when a helicopter crew from Fairchild Air Force Base near Spokane, Wash., whisked an injured 77-year-old man near the Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness's 7,054-foot Mink Peak to safety.

Fish and Game is also allowed to land at several backcountry airstrips in the Frank Church.

But the 1964 Wilderness Act generally prohibits mechanical transport there "except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area." The Forest Service can authorize such transport after analyzing the impacts.

Some groups are suspicious Idaho's proposed flights will contribute to killing wolves, which now number about 1,000 in the state. When the flights were proposed in 2006, wolves were still protected under the Endangered Species Act. Federal protections were lifted this year in Idaho and Montana, and 13 environmental groups have sued, claiming the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's delisting was illegal.

Since delisting, Idaho is letting hunters shoot up to 220 wolves this year in an initial hunting season, which could help reduce their numbers to between 700 and 800 animals. State managers eventually want to cut wolf numbers to near 2005 levels of 520 animals, but Jon Marvel, head of the Hailey, Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project, says the law requires only a wolf population of 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs to keep them off the endangered species list.

Idaho could use information gleaned from wilderness helicopter missions to accelerate wolf killing where conflicts with ranchers and hunters are more common, he said.

"If all of those breeding pairs are found inside the Frank Church, then you can kill all the wolves outside the wilderness with impunity," Marvel said.

Idaho Fish and Game officials haven't met with Marvel about their latest proposal, but they have spoken to other groups, including The Wilderness Society and the Idaho Conservation League. Both opposed helicopter flights in 2006; this time around, Rick Johnson, the Idaho Conservation League's executive director, is so far withholding judgment.

"They're doing a better job," Johnson said. "But given the volatility of the wolf issue, everybody is going to view this from probably the worst-case scenario. Part of the challenge is, you have a state leadership that has been quite strongly on the record on the degree of control they want to provide."

Andy Brunelle, a U.S. Forest Service spokesman, didn't immediately return a phone call seeking comment.