You are here

Effort To Reduce Horse Access To Wilderness In Sequoia, Kings Canyon National Parks Turning Into Wedge Issue

Share

 

Horses are becoming the latest wedge issue in the National Park System, as efforts to reduce their access to wilderness in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks are being portrayed both as a job killer and a denier of your right to visit the parks.

At least one congressman is blaming the Obama administration for "pushing backcountry horsemen out of business," while a petition drive launched on change.org claims that, "Young people, old people or any person with a disability will lose their right to visit Sequoia National Park with the removal of this option of travel."

Spurring the political vitriol and off-base access claims is an effort by the High Sierra Hikers Association to both get the National Park Service to meet the provisions of The Wilderness Act and to protect the sensitive environmental landscape of wilderness in Sequoia and Kings Canyon. The association is not trying to ban outright horse trips into the high country of the two parks, but rather seeks what it believes is a more manageable level.

Armed with a ruling that the Park Service violated The Wilderness Act in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks with the way it managed horse pack trips, the hikers association wants U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg to order the agency to rein-in the pack trips. 

In a motion (attached below) filed last week in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the hikers association asked Judge Seeborg to order the Park Service to reduce by 20 percent from 2007 levels the number of pack trips allowed into the parks' wilderness areas, and prohibit grazing of stock in wilderness meadows above 9,700 feet.

Additionally, the group said the court should order the Park Service to ban the hauling by stock of "unnecessary items" into wilderness areas. Such items, the filing noted, include "tables, chairs, ice chests, and amplified sound players."

Doing so, and ordering the Park Service to rewrite its management plan as it applies to pack trips, is necessary to protect wilderness areas, the association maintained.

Until now, commercial stock have trampled wilderness meadows, leaving their wilderness character impaired.  Commercial stock have also been used to carry unnecessary items and luxury goods into the wilderness, turning these national parks into theme parks and frustrating the enjoyment of (Sequoia and Kings Canyons)’s wilderness areas as wilderness.  Interim relief will avoid irreparable environmental injury to SEKI’s wilderness areas until NPS considers whether, and to what extent, commercial stock services are necessary.

              
The case has been making its way through the legal system since 2009. In its initial lawsuit, in September 2009, the hikers association 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.

But 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 back in January, Judge 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, 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."

In seeking injunctive relief at a hearing set for May 23, the hikers association cited past rulings by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the public's best interest is "in maintaining pristine wild areas unimpaired by man for future use and enjoyment." At the same time, the group's motion notes, the approach to managing backcountry horse trips at Sequoia and Kings Canyons is detrimental to those qualities.

"Letters from park visitors also reveal that current levels of commercial stock services frequently prevent visitors from enjoying the primeval character, solitude, and natural conditions associated with wilderness," the association's petition said.

In one letter, visitors said their trip was "ruined by the huge amount of dust created by stock animals”; another wrote that "(T)he character of the wilderness experience that we can usually count on when three or four days from the trailhead is completely destroyed when a large group of people camp in the area with all the comforts of home [which they have carried in using stock]”; and another stated that "instead of enjoying the pure alpine air, which is one of the points of a trip in the first place, hikers are forced to breathe a mixture of dust and powdered manure that creates air quality that would not be tolerated . . . on any freeway in California.”

The petition also pointed that "NPS acknowledged in the GMP that 'backcountry hikers often are disturbed by the impacts of stock use — the presence and smell of urine or feces, the potential introduction of alien weeds, heavily grazed and trampled meadows, dust, erosion, and some widened trails.'"

U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California, somehow connected the hikers association's efforts with Obama administration. In a column on his blog last week the congressman wrote that:

Rural mountain communities are once again in the cross-hairs of liberal politicians and regulators. Having already devastated California’s mining and timber industries with laws and regulations limiting access to public lands, environmental radicals have moved full speed into a new round of limitations that impact recreational use of our National Parks. They want to eliminate the backcountry horsemen, the only means left by which the vast majority of Americans, including those with disabilities, are able to gain access to the American wilderness.

  Furthermore, Rep. Nunes maintained that "... the Obama Administration is pushing backcountry horsemen out of business at the same time it is urging Americans to “get outdoors.”

The White House could demonstrate an interest in protecting these “outdoor” jobs with a simple act – one that it has so far refused to entertain. The Administration simply needs to ask the court for a one year extension of existing permits. A one year extension would allow adequate time for the permitting process to be updated in order to reflect new wilderness requirements and it may spare the small but time honored industry from the chopping block.

  Meanwhile, over at change.org, a petition drive aimed at U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, has gathered more than 1,300 signatures in support of horse trips into wilderness areas.

Horses allow access to your Federal lands when you are unable or unwilling to hike to reach the wilderness. Young people, old people or any person with a disability will lose their right to visit Sequoia National Park with the removal of this option of travel.

  But the matter at hand would not jeopardize anyone's right to visit Sequoia, nor would it place the park's wilderness, which comprises roughly 90 percent of the park's high country, out of reach. It could make obtaining a slot on a horse trek into the backcountry a bit more difficult, depending upon how Judge Seeborg rules. In that regard, though, some might equate that with the challenge of obtaining a room in the Yosemite Valley or at Old Faithful in Yellowstone.

Comments

Fascinating.
 
A discussion starts about horse use in the wild and it leaps to a patronizing ["Ah, grasshoppah?"] pat on the head, paranoid about national healthcare legislation.


Rick B:  
In the macro world of thought and how a movement trickles  down in broadly reaching ways what Ss1 brought up about hiking is more healthy than riding (in a micro physiological way it might be which leads me to tell everyone to get rid of your cars and walk)), this is exactly an example of the power that the legislation can be directed in unseen ways.  Some bureocrat that thinks the way Ss1 thinks can direct laws to eliminate "unhealthy lifestyles."  Of course it seems absurd but that's what, in effect, it leads to. There is a reason why we are where we are.  Some want it to double down to preserve their lucrative turf and phylosophy.  For any individual that wants to experience the Parks and what they can impart it is a gradual loss that is directed at the heart of us all.  I am getting expansive here but it is directed at the head of the snake.  It's because I care for what I've seen experienced by so many and how it all fills me up that I even bother.   


No worries Connected...though it'll save me the time of cleaning up the comments, which, as you might have noticed, I've stopped doing;-) 

Not sure why the coding follows when you cut and paste, but it is what it is.


Dear Connected, with all due respect to your opinions, I went back and read the posts, and nobody talked about (or even suggested) the regulation or elimination of unhealthy lifestyles, other than you. All I did was question the idea by "Anonymous" that going on commercial packtrips is a "healthy" activity. I specificially stated that I wasn't passing judgment and don't think it's wrong. (I enjoy the trips myself, but observed simply that I tend to be less active and more indulgent when I'm on these trips than when I'm at home.) It's certainly your right to soap box about health care and Big Brother conspricacy theories, if you want, but you leapt there entirely on your own. There is no judgment or launch-pad to those topics in my post, not even between the lines. The arguments for allowing packtrains to continue will ring more true if we are honest (i.e., the trips allow some people to see the remote parts of our parks who otherwise would not go there), and those arguments may fall flat if we exaggerate by touting the trips as "healthy." (Check out the menu. Yum!!)


Steve Kander:  
We are talking about California and specifically the Bay Area where the leaps taken by politicos and judges (9th Circuit) are beyond anything I could imagine.  Having been involved in at least one such effort very similar to the one being discussed here, I have witnessed similar arguments (healthier more pristine).  It's to bad that the pack trip you chose and apparently enjoyed appealed to your more catered sensibilities.  The guests I've taken into the wild have quite a bit of personal equity in the adventure and many are transformed and in tears when the trip is reaching it's end.  Sad that you haven't experienced what I've seen on a daily bases.  Complaining about ice chests and picnic tables could only come from folks in Berkeley, it's environs or the same gene pool.
Respectfully


Kurt, thank you for this informative post on Traveler. Your posts are always worth reading as is the range of opinions presented by your readers. I have always been a fan of a well led string of mules on our wilderness trails. That said, and understanding this issue is over commercial stock use, not private, I do think its extremely important to help these old time pack stations stay in business. As Ranger George Durkey points out, some concessions may have to made, but I am sure most of the packers will comply. I stopped riding horses at age 50, not because I did not enjoy it, but I thought backpacking would be good for me. Now 22 years later, I am still hiking, but must admit the pack is getting heavier and, on occasion, get a packer to haul my pack on the first day. My experience with these professionals has always been very satisfactory, they are a part of a long standing and historical use of our public lands. I would much rather see a packer supplying work efforts in our wilderness areas than a high tech helicopter. Its a tough issue, but your even handed reporting on the court case is much appreciated. 


Sorry, "Connected," if I'm missing your point, but who needs ice chests and picnic tables to experience the wilderness?  Doesn't it require more animals (which tear up the trails and graze the meadows) to bring in those unnecessary luxuries?  I don't get it; you apparently provide some kind of transformative wilderness adventures (that's great! really great!) but at the same time you attack folks who find unnecessary luxury catering and extravagance to be inappropriate in a wilderness setting?  FYI, I'm a rural girl, born and raised (not from Berkeley, honest), and I've too often had my wilderness experience shattered by loud horse parties with everything but the kitchen sink. Wilderness should be about allowing freedom & recreation while causing the minimum harm (i.e., fewest number of pack horses necessary). You seem to disagree with the last part, and support an "anything goes" approach. I just can't buy into your be-littling folks like me for questioning why the unnecessary extras shouldn't be left at the trailhead (or at home) to minimize the number of horses to what's really necessary. The lighter the footprint of each group, the more groups can have the transformative experience you describe. I just can't imagine very many people who truly "need" an ice chest or picnic table to experience the wilderness, or the extra animals needed to haul such things in and out.


Excellent comments, GraniteGirl, and spot on.  (Without any insults, too.)

And Ron Mackie, it's great to see that you're still out there hiking and backpacking.  For the rest of Traveler's readers, if this is the same Ron Mackie with whom I worked many years ago in Yosemite, you all need to sit up and take notice of his wisdom.  He often didn't have a lot to say in those days, but when he did, it was worth listening.  I doubt that he's changed much in those extra  years.  Keep smiling and hiking, Ron!


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.