Horse travel in backcountry areas of national parks long has been viewed as not only somewhat romantic, a throwback to the Old West, but also as a necessity for hauling in not only visitors but vast amounts of gear that otherwise would be problematic to carry in.
But for those not on a horse, walking in their wake can be a challenge in terms of avoiding not only at-times voluminous amounts of manure, fresh and old, but also hoof-pocked trails and trampled areas. During wet seasons, dozens of hooves can pretty much trash trails.
A federal court in California recently took up the case of the use of stock animals in wilderness areas of Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks, and agreed with a hikers' organization that the National Park Service violated The Wilderness Act by failing to study the necessity of pack trips in the parks.
Somewhat interestingly, the ruling comes more than 40 years after the Park Service decided it would phase-out the use of stock animals in the high country of the two parks, but never fulfilled that decision.
The ruling (attached below) brings to fore the question of how damaging pack trips are to wilderness areas in the National Park System.
The case, which has been making its way through the legal system since 2009, was brought by the High Sierra Hikers Association. In its initial filing in September 2009 the group pointed out that when Sequoia officials adopted a master plan for the two parks in 1971, they specifically announced their intent to both phase out stock use from higher elevation areas of the two parks that are particularly sensitive to impacts and to eliminate grazing in all areas of the parks.
In reaching that decision, park officials at the time cited "the damage resulting from livestock foraging for food and resultant trampling of soils, possible pollution of water, and conflict with foot travelers..." the association's filing noted.
When the Park Service adopted a General Management Plan for the two parks in 1997, it did not reiterate the desire to phase out stock use, but instead decided to allow stock use "up to current levels."
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg held that Sequoia and Kings Canyon officials failed to conduct the requisite studies into the commercial need for pack trips in the two parks. Specifically, the judge noted in his ruling late last month, the Park Service must examine how commercial backcountry uses impact the landscape and "balance ... their potential consequences with the effects of preexisting levels of commercial activity."
"The Park Service has ignored and evaded the requirements of the Wilderness Act for decades," said Peter Browning, president of the High Sierra Hikers Association. "We hope that this court decision will prompt the Park Service to follow the law by limiting stock use and commercial services in our national parks to those that are truly necessary and not harmful to park resources."
Comments
This discussion seems to be reaching a natural end.
I do truly regret that lovers of America's wildlands are so much at odds with one another. It's like the Balkans or monotheistic religions . . . a splintering of people with interests that in theory are shared.
Very true, imtnbke. The "splintering of people" would be good to reach it's natural end, also. That's usually achieved when the different groups find a common enemy. Difficult to find when ideology and financial rewards keep many of the camps entrenched no matter what it does to the country. Just saying...
National Parks Travelor, thank you for this interesting dialog on the recent court ruling on horses and mules on wilderness trails. I would like to thank IMTNBKE, the attorney, for his perspective on the ruling. I do think its important to point out that in some areas, one in particular, Yosemite National Park, private stock use of the wilderness trails is roughly 1% of the total wilderness use. Commercial and agency stock use comprise roughly another 3%. Most of the agency use is to support wilderness trails and restoration crews, and other important administrative responsibilities such as scientific research and wilderness ranger patrol. Much of the concessionaire stock use in Yosemite is basically to support the 5 High Sierra Camps on the 50 mile High Sierra loop trail. Roughly 80 miles of the 800 miles plus trail system in Yosemite receives over 80% of the total wilderness trail use. Its interesting to note that hikers/backpackers of which I am one, do complain about the horse and mule waste on the trails, but in my own view, the human waste at every trail junction, camping spot and lake, or stream, is much more offensive. Yet few complain about it. Its also interesting to see the cell phones GPS, satelite phones, etc carried by hikers, about as high tech as you can get. Its an interesting issue, but I do support the responsible use of horse and mules in our wilderness areas. I also support the need for hi tech helicopters for search and rescue and fire management purposes. No I think IMTNBKE got it right, ie the court got confused in this ruling, I hope saner heads prevail.
You are all lucky that you are allowed to enter wilderness areas at all! Since so little of this country is designated as wilderness and wilderness areas are so fragile, can you really blame people for wanting to limit wilderness use to the most harmless of activities? Besides, there are countless other places to ride horses and mountain bike. If only allowing certain activities in wilderness areas has even the slightest chance of helping to preserve them, then I'm all for preservation!
BrianD,
The old argument about "mountain bikers should stop complaining, they have so much other stuff to ride" was debated sometime last year here on NPT. IIRC, I came to the conclusion that roughly 20% of all park/outdoor public spaces in the lower 48 was wilderness. So, it's not exactly insignificant, as one would expect with 50m acres. In certain areas, wilderness is 100% of the space within a short distance. Not everybody is lucky enough to live in an area with city and county parks, USFS land and wilderness within an hour drive.
I have been living and working in the wilderness for close to 30 years, While yes, stock does cause impact, I have yet to see impairment. Big difference here. Wilderness does not belong to groups of elitist, I just wish the packer that offended the HSHA some thirty years ago would not have been such a jackass. There is room for everyone and I can guareentee that if you abolish stock use then our trail crews are going to have a much more difficult job maintaining the system. The Wilderness act itself is somewhat of a romantic notion and the actual application of the act and the interpretation of "untrammeled" could leave many to believe that it should be fenced and looked at from beyond and not enjoyed. Wilderness is to be enjoyed, not placed in glass case to be admired but never experienced. PS not sure how traveler got it but I believe that's my photo above.
Anonymous, the photo came from the Sequia NP website. Please do claim it if it's yours. It's a beaut!
George makes a good point that current perception of a wilderness is arbitrarily perceived to represent pre-European contact. When I hike in wilderness to hunt baby bears, I tend to feel uncomfortable when I see white people around as it infringes against my perception of what wilderness should be. But I feel better when I have that sweet bear claw meat. Seriously though, Anonymous of 3:07 pm is correct that wilderness is to be enjoyed, and that was the chief lesson of Muir - that wilderness is a highly personal experience, a conduit to experience God, and to refresh oneself for industrial society. No doubt many here are familiar with Muir' Steep Trails (oh wait, NPS no longer allows grades above 10%), or Leopold's land ethic, or the prototype work of Frederick law Olmstead in shaping our relations with landscapes. the common thread in all these pieces is wilderness or natural landscapes as antidotes to industrial society that should not be policy wonked to death (discalimer: I'm a policy wonk). Using this common sense test, bicycles should be allowed, pack animals should be allowed. Just don't act stupid. We'll never codify that but I wish we could.