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
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.
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?
Among this group, the topic is of interest, but compared to unemployment, health care, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, the euro, and the Keystone pipeline, bicycles in Wilderness isn't even a microissue. It's a nanoissue. And even that comparison leaves out what preoccupies most members of Congress during their waking hours, namely raising money for reelection.
Also, in 1980 Congress said that bicycling was OK for the Rattlesnake Wilderness in Montana. This is the one and only time Congress has ever passed a law regarding bicycles in Wilderness—and it said yes! It's covered in the law review article that's been linked to above. However, the Forest Service is unwilling to allow it there notwithstanding the 1980 law. (It seems to think that the law isn't clear enough, but if you read the law's text, it seems pretty clear.)
Hello:
I have a question regarding the court's ruling (not the intent of the plaintiff). Just to be clear, did the court rule against the use of pack animals in wilderness per se, or did the court rule against the commercial use (of pack animals)? Maybe it was stated in the court ruling, but my mind went numb trying to read it. If this has already been addressed in the comments, my apologies. The comments seem to have taken on a life of their own.
Thanks,
M
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:
Of course, that's just one individual's thoughts, and top IMBA officials disagree with his view.
I wonder if one doesn't need to create two wilderness "buckets" -- one containing National Park System lands, and one containing all other public lands -- and approach them separately? Indeed, I think that's already being done, no?
As I previously noted, in the National Park System most lands that qualify for wilderness status already are managed as such, ie, no bike riding allowed, and so to respond to ec's comment that bikers would lose landscape if official designation were made, in this case the biking community wouldn't lose anything since they already are denied access to them.
I'd wager that the largest impediment to additional wilderness designations is the combination of the highly partisan landscape in Congress and the highly pro-consumption view of most of the Republicans elected from the Western states, some of who sit (and control) such highly powerful committees, such as the House Natural Resources Committee.
(Aside to imtnbike: Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, long has carried the Red Rock Wilderness legislation that would designate millions of Utah acres as wilderness, and in the Senate Richard Durbin from Illinois is its sponsor, so there are congressfolk from east of the Rockies who care about wilderness.)
For some insights on today's political climate and wilderness designation, take a look at this story I wrote back in October 2009 on just these topic.
/2009/10/what-would-teddy-think4804
I think it's easy to agree that getting outdoors, whether you're on a bike, horse, or foot, is good for you. From the Traveler's standpoint, though, it's important to realize that lands contained within the park system are managed with an entirely different intent, a completely different ethos, than those in the national forest system or across the BLM landscapes. And part of that intent is to preserve, as much as possible, the "wilderness" character from the past and to provide landscapes where one can explore on foot or by canoe or kayak and yes, even horse, and experience the outdoors without the intrusion of today's more frenetic world.
Is that a purist's approach? Perhaps. But I do think there's a need for such settings today. When we continue to chip away at truly natural settings with all forms of use and intrusions (ie, the arguments for more cell towers to provide coverage in these areas), I fear we lose not only something from those settings, but slowly erode our ability to escape, if only for a while, the franticness of the world, and our ability to fully understand those settings, and understand ourselves.
And while some would say that's a selfish approach, one that comes down to an unwillingness to share, I'd disagree with that accusation, as well, as I have in past years when this subject comes up, for there's no ban at all on anyone walking into a wilderness area.
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.
These issues propel my thinking on a daily basis. I'm a doctoral student of forestry. Lately, for me, it hinges on vulnerability and commodification of wildness. On vulnerability: contemporary technological advances in outdoor gear such as SPOT devices which allow backcountry tweets and FB status updates along with polymerized apparel induce a cocoon of security that muffles the evocative nature of wilderness character. On commodification: many visitors are seeking a "sanitized, convenient, and trophy-home version of wilderness" (Krakoff) due to the marketization of wildness (think High Sierra Camps). Visitors to Half Dome are awarded access after competing in the marketplace for a permit that hardly differs in appearance with a concert ticket with even "GENERAL ADMISSION" branded across it. Is it any wonder that those same visitors invoke their credit card holding benefit of helicopter rescue when foul weather strikes? I am not blaming the visitor. I hope for adminstrative reform. I believe that the hiking group is concerned with the Sierra alpine experience being misconstrued as a consumptive act; a market transaction. Anyone reading this surely values the joy of the outdoors. I am concerned that public lands and the experience of wildness are threatened by technological and market creep. Before your reply, please know that I'm not coming from any Marxist or Socialist ideology. I value democracy. My chief concern is for the integrity of the Wilderness experience.
Anonymous, if you've ridden on trails in Rocky Mountain, you've done so against the regs:
"Trailbikes, mopeds, and bicycles are prohibited off established roads in Rocky Mountain National Park. Nearby National Forests offer off-road trails for backcountry cycling."
Kurt,
With all due respect, I "accuse" you of being selfish. You're essentially saying that your experience of wilderness/NPS is better than mine, which is why I should be banned from going in (unless I give in and experience it the way you like it). Seems pretty selfish to me.
Ultimately, therein lies the difference, I'm not telling you to experience the outdoors the way I like it (on a bike). I respect others right to enjoy the outdoors anyway they want, as long they don't impact the environment negatively (something apparently horses are not living up to).