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
I.P.: well said, but clearly common sense has been lacking at the federal government for a while now...
Again, well put I.P. To add to that I say that another antidote to industrial society is keeping Wilderness commercial free. A compromise is allowing some commercial activity but only to the extent necessary for realizing those wilderness values. If infact the commercial stock use is necessary then take a good look at how much is really needed and don't just keep it at the current levels (what the park failed to do some time ago). My guess is if the park staff had scaled it back to what is proper (if needed at all) for realizing those Wilderness values then much of this would/could have been avoided. All the land agencies should take a good look at the commercial activity within Wilderness and truly try to determine if it is even necessary. If so, what is the true extent needed?
I have long thought that the horse/packstock/equestrian community needs a visionary leader who can take on some of the issues that threaten horse use throughout the United States. Right now, as far as I can tell, there is none.
I (a mountain biker and not an equestrian) see more and more "no horses" signs at trailheads from South Carolina to California. The equestrian community seems to lack any leader who can address this challenge in a persuasive and effective manner.
Here in California, horse-riders and mountain bikers are at loggerheads. I see horse-riders losing over the long term. Why? Because they rely on a dubious strategy of telling land managers that their horses can't tolerate other users. It's not just mountain bikers. Equestrians also sound warnings about hikers, backpackers, children, other animals, joggers, runners, and on and on.
To be sure, mountain bikers are the main current threat, so the equestrians focus on attempting to deny bicycle access. But they also bring up the other groups that make them apprehensive as they argue that they need high levels of protection from others. On public lands, paid for by taxpayers, I can't see this stance remaining persuasive.
Eventually, land managers are going to say, "If it's too dangerous for horses to be around other people, why should we accommodate them on public lands?"
If the current equestrian and packstock leadership think the orthodox environmental groups (Sierra Club, Pacific Crest Trail Ass'n, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Wilderness Watch, Wilderness Society, Audubon Society, etc.) are going to come to their aid, I suspect they're going to be increasingly disappointed. I bet that many in those groups agree with the anti-horse High Sierra Hikers Association.
What the equestrians need is a conciliator—a Lyndon Johnson, Willie Brown, Nelson Mandela or Bill Clinton—to schmooze, massage, and persuade. And above all, to compromise, especially with the mountain bikers they've alienated thoroughly in the last 20 years. I've seen no evidence that they have any such type of person in their ranks. Am I wrong?
So the question, of course, is to what extent should those impacts be allowed to give stock-supported users a wilderness experience? That's what HSHA was trying to codify with their lawsuit.
But it is codified. Pack animals ARE allowed to bring people and gear to enjoy the wilderness. The niggling details come in how much impact they are allowed to have when they do so. You say as long as they "don't act stupid." That's one of those phrases that everyone nods there head and goes "yep, good 'ol common sense." But come on, that's a meaningless phrase. A packer doing everything in as environmentally sensitive way as possible can still bring 20 1,200 pound animals into a national park wilderness. In, say, a 5 day trip, those animals will produce 3,500 lbs of manure and 240 gallons of urine. Much of the phosphates and nitrates from that waste will go into streams and lakes where they will provide nutrients for algae. In addition, one study in Yosemite found that 3 - 6% of the stock in the study carried giardia and cryptosporidium. So there's the potential of tens of thousands of cysts being washed into rivers and streams.
After a day's ride, the horses are released to graze and they often roll in the meadow to get the sweat off. Those "roll pits" persist for years. In alpine meadows (above, say, 9,500 feet or so in the Sierra) I've seen pits take 30+ years to recover.
And then there's the impact of removing tons of grasses and forbes from meadows when the animals eat them. What's the effect on wildlife who use that same meadow or who live there? What's the effect on Belding's ground squirrels when a horse crushes through the meadow into their tunnels or eats the grasses they dpend on? The effect of horses and mules going through riparian bird nesting areas to get water or eat? What are the long-term effects of horses eating certain species of grasses over others?
I just dredged up this observation by long-time backcountry ranger Randy Morgenson:
The point that I believe HSHA was trying to force the NPS to accept is that while, yes, stock users have an absolute right to enjoy wilderness on stock-supported trips, all users also have a right to see at least some meadows in a pristine and ecologically intact state and see "knee high grasses, ripe and open panicles drifting on the moving air, luminous-bronze in the backlight." All visitors, stock supported and hikers, are denied that experience if the grass is eaten. There may be no actual impairment -- that is, the impact may be short term (a few months until the grass grows back) -- but is even that short-term impact justified when 20 animals are needed to support, say, 7 people?
Bikes. Also codified: It's still illegal. Still. I talked to some friends at Pt. Reyes, where there had been conflicts in the past. It pretty much confirmed what I wrote earlier that eventually the community, however reluctantly, starts to accept the regulations. Overall, in the last 10 years (and more than a few citations and arrests) violations have gone down. Also, I think horses are allowed on weekdays, just not on weekends. Not a bad compromise.
George
As a one-time colleague of George's, I think that we should pay attention to the points he has made in his posts on this thread. He has probably logged more time in the Sierra's backcountry (in both Yosemite and Sequoia) than any 10 of the rest of readers of NPT together. I find that what he has said squares up with my observations during the time i spent in Yosemite. I also appreciate his balanced view on this controversial issue.
Rick
I second that. We won't agree about the legality or illegality of bicycles, but I agree with everything else George said in his last post.
The item I linked to before alleging horse and packstock damage to the Pasayten Wilderness is truly disturbing. Here it is again:
http://wildernesswatch.org/pdf/1999_State_of_the_Pasayten_Report.pdf
By the way, we mountain bikers don't disturb plants or urinate by the gallon. Most of us don't roll in the grass either! In fact, unlike even backpackers, we almost always leave that day and don't set up a campsite. I think the environmental impact of mountain bikers is less than that of any other overland group, except day hikers, where our impact is about equal. One can debate social impact, where mountain bikers, like cross-country skiers, joggers and runners, introduce the factor of speed on downhills, but that is easily managed today.
I don't think that George is interested in the impact of biking on the environment, and that he's more interested in enforcing the current legal interpretation which suits his bias.
Speaking of Point Reyes, a well known local cyclist was caught there a couple years ago. The local DA was ready to throw the book at him and took him to trial. This is completely amazing to me that we would spend that many resources to go after somebody for rolling on dirt instead of walking...but that's anothe story. Regardless the cyclist basically won the trial by getting a nominal fine that the judge could not waive away. Interestingly, rumor is that there's still plenty of cyclists enjoying Pt Reyes, most just don't get caught.
One more comment: George is mistaking law enforcement with education. Park rangers happily distribute fines to enforce the current inane ban. The only thing one learns from it is to know how to avoid rangers better.
First I must ask "Are Unicycles allowed where Bicycles are not?"
Kurt
"Another perspective could be that you're selfish in that you want to
impose your mode of enjoyment on those who would prefer to enjoy the
wilderness without bikes -- the setting that The Wilderness Act
currently provides -- that you don't care about their wilderness
experience and whether you destroy it."
What about the people on bikes enjoyment being ruined by Hikers and those not on bikes?