You are here

Court Rules That Sequoia National Park Officials Violated Wilderness Act By Allowing Horse Trips

Share

A federal judge has found that the National Park Service failed to do requisite studies into the need for stock use in high country wilderness areas of Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks. NPS file photo.

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

Matt, bikes currently are not allowed in wilderness areas, so you raise a moot question in this discussion. Outside of wilderness areas, we're all one big melting pot of recreation....barring other regulations.


George - Its sad that some see themselves above the law and decide they can obey only the rules that they agree with.


AHHH but a unicycle is not a Bicycle! Though it is still mechanical.


Wow, this thread won't die. Which is OK. It's interesting. Eventually we're going to run out of things to say.

George, I didn't know that horses are allowed at Point Reyes National Seashore only on weekdays. That's interesting. Where can one find this out, if you happen to know?

George and Ecbuck1 — regarding the legalities, a lot could be said about this. Ecbuck1, you expressed disdain for scofflaws. I'd like to point out, though, that the only specific "law" against bicycles is a National Park Service rule that copied a Forest Service rule that the Forest Service itself went back and forth on from 1966 to 1984 (see that law review publication that's been linked to in this thread). The agencies just kind of adopted it. I've also read that they did this with not even a fraction of the public comment that such a proposal would get today. They got one or two comments from the public and that was it. The reason, obviously, is that this was before IMBA existed, before mountain bikes existed, and so before there was any opposition. It would be like proposing "no flying saucers" today. I doubt anyone would be opposed. However, in 2018 things might be different! (This is a humorous reference to the B-movie spoof Iron Sky, which will premiere in April. See this link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/.)

On the other hand, the Wilderness Act of 1964 does forbid "mechanical transport," and I suppose George and Ecbuck1 feel that anyone who cares about wildlands would give that ambiguous statutory text a generous read and stay out of National Park Wilderness areas on bicycles, unicycles, pogo sticks, skateboards, in-line skates, Big Wheels, tricycles, and Radio Flyer wagons. (See http://www.redwagons.com/wagons.html for a bit of nostalgia.)

It's not a completely ludicrous stance, if that is their stance. However, I disagree that bicycles do anything to interfere with the National Park and/or Wilderness experience of any reasonable human being. The princess discomfited by the pea, yes. Most people, no. I read on the Internet some years ago a post by one of these Wilderness-bicycling scofflaws. He or she (probably he) said that whenever he encounters hikers in the Wilderness, they all say hello and no one cares. I take note of Zebulon's comment that there is lots of noncompliant bike-riding at Point Reyes too. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.


George is correct that some routes at Point Reyes National Seashore are weekdays-only for horses:

http://www.nps.gov/pore/parkmgmt/upload/lawsandpolicies_compendium_horse...


I understand the frustration of mountain bikers that Congressionally designated wilderness if off limits to their choice in mode of transportation. However, it is currently the interpretation regardless of the jurisdiction. As far as I can tell, the only thing that could change it now would be a law that specifically modifies the Wilderness Act to specifically exclude bicycles from the definition of mechanical transport in a wilderness area.

Besides all that, arguing that would also seem to be fruitless as far as the NPS goes. Even in areas without designated wilderness, bicycling isn't typically allowed off road. It's typically only allowed on pavement and specific fire roads or wide dirt roads. I don't recall any NPS units where bicycles are allowed on narrow trails. There was someone who tried riding on trails at Grand Canyon NP (with zero designate wilderness) and got a court appearance for his efforts.

If bicycles were open to wilderness areas, it might make a difference in Forest Service and BLM areas. I don't see NPS areas changing their policies.


YPW, I agree with you. I don't see the National Park Service changing its policy, and I don't see the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service changing theirs either. Probably, regarding Wilderness, someone will have to get a citation and challenge it in criminal court, because I don't see any mountain biking organization having the money to bring it as a plaintiff in civil court. Even then, that would not affect the NPS rule that forbids mountain bikes on most trails even outside Wilderness. Under the Organic Act (16 USC §§ 1, 1a-1), I suspect that NPS can administer the trails however it wants to.

I have heard, however, that NPS is modernizing to the extent of allowing mountain biking on narrow trails at Mammoth Caves National Park and, soon if not already, Big Bend National Park.


It sounds to me like the biking community is contriving a not-convincing argument about "intent" involving bicycles.  I read the linked article about "intent", and it had NO information about the intent.  It's main point is that it was not particularly thought about, because the bikes of the time were not very trailworthy.
But that is not a cogent arguement!  Clearly, Satphone controlled radio planes were not in the mind of the writers, because they did not exist.  They did create a mechanism for dealing with such things: the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior.  So when the point in time was reached where bikes WERE emerging as a problem, they were adjudicated.  So were hang gliders, so were toy planes.  And so will be kayaks, and flying saucers.....but probably not until they become issues, because the managers have enough to do without regulating problems that don't exist.  But bikes did become a problem, and so, were dealth with, under the definitions of the Act.
Anyone who argues that running into a bicycle is a normally expected wilderness experience, and is typical wilderness character, has apparently not spent much time in wilderness.  Horses, however, ARE normally expected wilderness experiences, and does not create a "non-wilderness" character or experience.
Saying that something is so, does not make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it. 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.