You are here

Home

All Recent Comments

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

Feb 8th - 10:35am | Anonymous

That's ridiculous. I've hiked and ridden RMNP for the past couple decades. The impact of trail riding on trails, even lower elevation ones, is minimal.

Feb 8th - 08:28am | Kurt Repanshek

ec and imtnbke, I just don't think the mountain bike lobby (with no disrepect to my IMBA friends) is large enough or powerful enough to block wilderness designations per se. Here's a telling snippet of comment left on IMBA's blog back in December:

Feb 8th - 01:01am | MM

Hello:

Feb 7th - 22:35pm | imtnbke

Zebulon is correct about Congress, by the way. Why should a member of Congress from Gary, Ind., or south Los Angeles have any interest in Wilderness management?

Feb 7th - 22:28pm | imtnbke

Kurt, I think Ecbuck has answered your question about the political effect of mountain bikers' opposition to new Wilderness designations that would lock us out where we've always ridden. I pretty much agree with what Ecbuck said.

Feb 7th - 21:23pm | Anonymous

Kurt:  To be COMPLETELY accurate :) what you posted is a chronicle of rule breaking activity, not to be confused with what is allowed at GCNP :).  If only they had carried their bikes, lol.  I wonder if they posted the Canyon crossing chapter and how the passing of the Mules on the trail went. 

Feb 7th - 19:20pm | Zebulon

Anonymous, you have way too high of an opinion of Congress.  In my more cynical view of things, people (including politicians and most certainly federal agency employees) follow the path of least resistance.  Therefore, it's much easier to let the ban stay (regardless of fairness or original intent) than to incur the wrath of the wildernuts by restoring the original intent of the Act.

Feb 7th - 19:12pm | Kurt Repanshek

Anonymous, Glacier and Yellowstone are two parks that manage most if not all of their backcountry as de facto wilderness. /2011/11/why-delay-designating-official-wilderness-national-parks9079 And here's regulatory language from Grand Teton: • Bicycles are NOT allowed on trails or in backcountry areas.

Feb 7th - 19:01pm | Anonymous

Zebulon - if your citation were correct in his analysis, Congress wouldn't have let the interpretation be otherwise for over 45 years.  I think the fact that they haven't moved to overturn the "ban" suggests that a ban on bikes is what they wanted.

Feb 7th - 18:50pm | Kurt Repanshek

Well, to be COMPLETELY accurate, back in March 2007 two guys who were riding their mountain bikes from Alaska to South America did indeed ride the trail through the canyon. They were busted after recounting the ride on their website. Here's part of what we wrote about them four years ago:

Feb 7th - 18:28pm | Anonymous

To be completely accurate with cycling restrictions at GCNP, mountain bikes are allowed as long as you are carrying them:).  The Arizona Trail crosses the Canyon on the North and South Kaibab Trails and in the last couple years we've seen a few doing the Arizona Trail through the Park carrying their bikes the 22 miles that they aren't allowed to ride.  

Feb 7th - 18:20pm | Kurt Repanshek

Well, in the parks that's pretty much a non-starter as, to the best of my knowledge, areas eyed for wilderness designation already are managed as de facto wilderness, so mountain biking would be off-limits as it is.

Feb 7th - 18:06pm | ecbuck

Kurt - its not that the "biking lobby" could push through legislation but if bikes were allowed - they wouldn't be in vocal opposition.  Creating wilderness will likely have limited near term impact on hikers thus, they don't tend to get worked up about an area being declared wilderness.  On the other hand bikers typically have been using the pre-wilderness designated area in the past.  A wilde

Feb 7th - 18:02pm | Zebulon

John, Please see the rebuttal above.  More here: http://www.imba.com/resources/land-protection/legal-analysis Knowledge is power. :)

Feb 7th - 17:35pm | John Apel

The Wilderness Act (Section 4(c)) prohibits "mechanical transport", of which bikes qualify. Exceptions are limited to the minimum requirements for the administration of area for the purpose of wilderness. Thats the language of the law not an "administrative reinterpretation".

Feb 7th - 16:10pm | Kurt Repanshek

imtnbke, it was rhetorical because I didn't want to accuse bikers or equestrians of being unpure;-) But I'm curious how you reach your conclusion that the bicycle ban is such an impediment to wilderness designation? What do you base that statement on? Surveys show there are millions more Americans involved in trail running, jogging, and hiking than in mountain biking.

Feb 7th - 15:39pm | imtnbke

Kurt, I don't understand the rhetorical question that's Part II of your 10:45 a.m. post, but I can address the first part. I'll quote it: " 'The ban hurts wilderness advocates probably more than anyone else'??? I'd say the biggest impediment to more wilderness designations are the Western congressional delegations."

Feb 7th - 15:32pm | imtnbke

Ranger Andy, A letter in today's New York Times captures your view perfectly: "While both sides of this debate have a moral foundation upon which to stand, only one side tries to insist that the other live according to its morals." That's your side, of course, as you've perfectly demonstrated in your post.

Feb 7th - 15:06pm | Zebulon

Ranger Andy,

Feb 7th - 14:31pm | Kurt Repanshek

Rick, for what it's worth, while in the Bechler area of Yellowstone last fall, a buddy and I had the unpleasant fate of hiking not far behind a ranger on his steed with one in tow with his gear. The trail itself was probably 6-8 inches deep in places, with thick brush and rocks on the sides. Sure, careful stepping helped avoid most of the manure, but this went on for a few miles.

Feb 7th - 14:28pm | Anonymous

I like it Rick B.  Going one step further.  When the trails are iced over and hikers are falling like flies, that green stuff and the etching of the ice those winter shoes provide, following the green is the safest path :).  "Can't we just get along," lol?

Feb 7th - 14:08pm | Rick B.

Other than walking through a corral or chicken coop, the only time I've ever stepped in horse crap, moose crap, dog crap, buffalo crap, or any other end product was when I didn't look where I was walking. Just sayin'.

Feb 7th - 13:23pm | Ranger Andy

Regarding bikes, I agree with another climber friend, who asserts that an essential aspect of "Wilderness" is pace, meaning on foot or hoof. Now I'm sure that concept can be attacked just as easily as defense of horse poop, but there are indeed safety issues involved.

Feb 7th - 12:25pm | Anonymous

Well Mike, in response to the Canyon not being in Wilderness designation, the opportunity to be an interactive part of the 105 year old history of Grand Canyon Mule Rides by all people including the handicapped, others with challenges besides everyone else young and old has been reduced by 75% to just 10 people day.  Only the very lucky and happen to be in modern lingo, a 1%er need apply.

Feb 7th - 12:11pm | Anonymous

HSHA leaves leaflets on cars at trail heads to solicit funds and they come right out and say "Tired of stepping on horse crap?"  It's obviousy about not wanting to share the trails with others.  Some say 'follow the money' to get to the root of a problem, I say 'follow the self-interest.'  Has anyone compared the impact of one horse to 500 hikers, because that's about the ratio.

Feb 7th - 11:45am | Kurt Repanshek

"The ban hurts wilderness advocates probably more than anyone else"??? I'd say the biggest impediment to more wilderness designations are the Western congressional delegations.

Feb 7th - 11:39am | imtnbke

Mike, I agree. The issue is Wilderness, not National Park status. Many people don't know that the two categories have a degree of overlap (i.e., much NPS land is also Wilderness), but that being a National Park doesn't mean one is operating a Wilderness as well. A good example is Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas (if I'm remembering the name correctly).

Feb 7th - 11:35am | imtnbke

Zebulon is correct. Not only is the bicycle ban inconsistent with other permitted mechanical uses in Wilderness, but the ban hurts Wilderness advocates probably more than anyone else.

Feb 7th - 11:24am | Mike Painter

The Grand Canyon isn't a designated wilderness. That's the issue here, not that King Canyon and Sequoia are national parks. Commercial services are allowed in wilderness areas only to the extent necessary, to realize the wilderness or recreational purpose of the area.

Feb 7th - 10:59am | imtnbke

Back to horses and packstock . . . . The Wilderness Watch lobbying group doesn't like commercial packstock trips and has these two reports on its website. They assert that horses and mules have made a mess of the Pasayten Wilderness in northern Washington:

Feb 7th - 10:45am | Zebulon

Anonymous, I think that Imtnbike explained thoroughly why the ban on bicycles is non sensical.  A pedal driven kayak is clearly mechanical and not banned.  Most importantly, and clearly the point you gladly ignore, is that the original intent was to ban non human powered forms of mechanical transport.

Feb 7th - 08:01am | Anonymous

"I said, "No one denies that a bicycle is a form of mechanical transport, after all." QED - then they are covered by the Act. An many, including myself (and the NPS) would deny that a fishing reel or a pulley for a bear bag are "mechanical transport".

Feb 6th - 23:39pm | Hildreth

I find it interesting that we are only going to ban horses in Sequoia and Kings Canyon Parks.  The trails there aren't used by pack teams and horses nearly as much as I have seen in Yosemite.  What about the mule trail rides at the Grand Canyon?  Don't just pick on the private business in just these two parks if you are not willing to make them all go away in all of the national parks.  This so

Feb 6th - 22:57pm | Anonymous

I did a season of trail maintenance in the Trinity Alps and I do agree somewhat with the assessment that stock animals cause trail damage. Your big enemies for erosion on a trail are water (rain and snow), stock animals and humans (in that order). Horses and mules are somewhat worse than humans in the fact that they're much heavier and can pound holes in softer soil.

Feb 6th - 22:29pm | imtnbke

Ecbuck, please read what I've written before you respond. I said, "No one denies that a bicycle is a form of mechanical transport, after all."

Feb 6th - 20:31pm | Zebulon

ecbuck: looks like your threads crossed with imtnbike, who answered your question thoroughly.   Personnally, I find it pretty humorous to see horses feeling threatened to be limited/kicked out of wilderness.  Welcome to our world. :)  Next thing you know, we'll hear the wilderness purists say how equestrians are not pushed out of wilderness, only their horses are...

Reader Participation Day: What is the Most Romantic Place in the National Park System?

Feb 8th - 10:23am | Anonymoussteve ...

Sunrise at Bryce Canyon.

Feb 8th - 10:05am | Anonymous

The Lodge at Death Valley this February 14th.  

Feb 8th - 09:37am | Heather Zaiger

The shore of Jenny Lake in Grand Teton National Park is by far the most romantic.

Feb 8th - 09:00am | Rick Smith

How about the Ostrander Ski Hut near Badger Pass in Yosemite? Rick

Sale of Plastic Water Bottles Banned At Grand Canyon National Park

Feb 7th - 10:59am | Mike Painter

There's no need to buy a refillable water bottle at the park and then throw it away when you get home. It's always a good idea to have one, whether you're a hiker or not. When not in use, keep one in the trunk of your car for emergencies. 

Feb 7th - 06:48am | Anonymous

hmmmmm.....makes we wonder.  Would I go to the park, buy a $1.50 bottle of cola, dump it to use it as my bottle?  The idea of free water, with a cost of a $10 bottle is not appealing.  Plus....many Americans would just throw out these re-usable bottles when returnig from vacation.  Sounds like 70% of the visitors are drinking soda, what about those bottles?  For a society that is trying to be m

Feb 6th - 21:18pm | Mark Lagrange

Go NPS! ... way to take the leadership role.

Feb 6th - 19:07pm | NPS employee

How about banning the sale of cigarettes in national parks?  Secondhand smoke pollutes the air in national parks.  Carelessly discarded cigarettes start wildfires.  Cigarette butts litter all national parks. 

Birding in The National Parks: Bald Eagles No Longer A Ghost Bird in the National Parks

Feb 7th - 08:06am | Anonymous

As I suspected the terms "psuedo-scientist" and "enironmentalist hack" don't appear in the quote.  Sounds to me like his comment was quite rational and accurate.

Feb 6th - 20:43pm | Lee Dalton

Utah Representative Rob Bishop speaking at a forum sponsored by Utah conservative group Sutherland Institute in November 2011:  "“Rachel Carson’s sentimental book, Silent Spring, was a large part of the reason DDT was banned even though the evidence then and now demonstrates that DDT does not cause cancer nor does it do other harm

Mule Packers from Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Prove They're Among the Best in the Business

Feb 7th - 06:32am | Bob

Can anyone provide me with the e-mail addresses of packers who could resupply me via Kearsage Pass on the John Muir Trail?

Yellowstone National Park Officials Crafting Framework For Lake Area's Future Development

Feb 7th - 01:00am | Jill

I love this area of Yellowstone. Yes, it could use some upgrades, but whatever happens in the future, please keep it from looking like the Old Faithful area!

Fall Into Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone Kills California Woman

Feb 7th - 00:25am | Charles

❤ forever :-(

Comments Being Taken on Proposal To Stop Importation, Transportation of Burmese Pythons

Feb 6th - 22:12pm | Anonymous

Studies have now proven that the Burmese Python and the Indian Python are two separate species that do not hybridize in the wild. The new taxonomy is Python molurus (Burmese Python) and Python Bivittatus (Indian Python).  The animals in Florida are, of course, Burmese pythons, and the Indian python data used to justify their addtion to the Lacey Act is doubly invalid.

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.