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

There's no shortage of judgement and assumptions here. What if someone is simply not comfortable sitting on the ground? Any of you have bad knees or a bad back? Or a grandparent who still loves the backcountry? The overwhelming assumption seems to be that everyone is in the same physical shape as Lee and Granite Girl, who obviously are very comfortable without chairs or tables and I say, more power to you both. However, there ARE people who perhaps could hike in previously, were comfortable perched on a rock or sitting on the ground with legs crossed, but age, time, and use have taken a toll on the body and it isn't possible anymore. I'm sorry, but some of you hikers are so damned myopic! "Well, it's comfortable for me so why shouldn't it be comfortable for everyone?" Get outside your own limited point of view PLEASE! and see that the wilderness is enjoyed by all kinds of people, not only the super-fit, flexible youth. YOUR view of how the wilderness should be enjoyed matters only to you. Go forth, travel light, and have a great time. But try a little tolerance too.


Bad knees etc have slowed me down considerably but I don't see that as an excuse to degrade wilderness (remote places) because conditions have changed for me. Knowing it is there and people like Granite Girl are experiencing it in an unintrusive manner is fine by me. Some people can't physically ride horses what about them, should we widen the trial so a Kawasaki Mule can bring them to remote places?


I agree that hikers are short sighted and not very open to outsiders. Their basic structure does not include handicapped or children into the rules they want passed. After my recent visit to Crabtree Falls I saw first hand that the people that were more capable were less tolerant of those who are less capable.
What to me is worse is that the same organization (NPS) that justifies killing off any non native species that can potentially damage "unique flora or fauna" will allow an invasive species (their definition not mine) like horses to trample through the parks.


Good comment, SS. At 71 years, I find it more difficult to get far into the wilderness these days. I know a day will come when I'll have to be content with standing outside and looking in. But knowing that these places will still be there -- in good condition -- for my grandchildren and theirs will be happiness enough.

I'm just passing through this world and I don't feel I'm entitled to damage or destroy any of it.


Vickie:
As always, Vickie, a good post. Much of it alludes to what I see as one of the crowning glories of the backcountry. With so many from varied backgrounds, political persuasions, temperament and physical condition, stepping into a world that truly humbles with the focus on things other than self. Meeting every challenge with anticipation and excitment, leaving stronger with memories that last a lifetime. Not a bad reality, I believe.
I'd like to add a letter, if Kurt would allow, from a single mother of twins who wrote me about her kids and her own experience. I have received permission to post.

Hi Jeff,

I've been thinking a lot about our experience with the canyon. I know
it was incredible for both my kids, but perhaps especially for Noah.
Last year this time, Noah was experiencing severe anxiety, was pulled
out of school, and had become nearly suicidal. I know that sounds
unbelievable for a then 11 year-old, but it was very intense and very
scary. We got help for him (medical and otherwise), and he is making
progress by leaps and bounds. I tell you this to let you know how
huge it was for Noah to be able to do this. He was awake at 4 a.m.
that morning of the mule ride, sure that he, or one of us, was fated
to die that day on those mules. He was sobbing nearly hysterically
and I began to doubt whether this was going to be possible and if I
was doing the right thing. I helped him get back to sleep and by
later that morning, the worst of it was gone, but by no means
completely disappeared. I can't thank you enough for helping him (and
me!) through that. It was a real breakthrough for him, one we'll
never forget and one that has and will continue to make a lasting
difference in his life. How incredible to get these things at the age
of 12! Thank you again.

I've been reflecting on my own experience with the canyon too. What
an amazing 30 hours, from Thursday morning to Friday afternoon. The
canyon itself has become a powerful metaphor for me. Something
happened to me over that day and a half. Something like a crevice
opened up for me, and I was somehow inside of it and yet an observer
of it, all at the same time. Like what I saw looking out over the
canyon, the space I saw and felt within myself was deep, vast, and
huge. At the bottom was the groundedness of the river - solid and
strong, and at the top was the etherealness of the sky - weightless
and fleeting. That heightened sense of awareness that the canyon
blessed me with, combined with many of the things you said and did,
and just your presence itself - gave me a perspective I hadn't had
before. (You probably weren't aware you were having such an effect on
me). In any case, the result of all this was that I saw things
differently - things about my childhood, my marriage, and myself.
Somehow, the canyon and you achieved, seemingly without effort, what
many hours of psychotherapy, books and occasionally medication, could
not. Some of what I saw was painful, some of it was bittersweet, but
it came with such an exhilarating and almost intoxicating sense of
clarity. And I've decided I'll take clarity, even if it's painful,
over ambiguity any day. It was that kind of clarity that seems to set
the truth right smack in front of you, gives you wings and says "go
now, you're free". I have you, and the canyon, to thank for that.
Words really are inadequate to express my gratitude - but you and the
canyon have been on my mind and I appreciate this opportunity to
express some of it to you with this letter. It comes from my heart.
I have no doubt that, while you love your work and feel blessed to be
there, you are also providing something for people that is truly
breathtaking and spectacular (and I don't just mean the views of the
canyon). You are part of something that can make a valuable
difference for peope. I hope you never lose sight of that. Well,
I've probably rambled on longer than I should. Wish we were there.
Thanks for listening, Jill

I've been thinking a lot about our experience with the canyon. I know


The reason given above for why some people desire camp furniture is simply "comfort." But there is nothing in the Wilderness Act that says people are supposed to be "comfortable" in wilderness, or that commercial services are necessary to pamper their clients with comforts. The only specific example provided is that some people may desire a chair because they may be uncomfortable sitting on the ground. If that's so, a member of the group could simply roll a rock or log into position for them to sit upon. (That's what wilderness visitors have done for ages.) And if that's not sufficient, the "uncomfortable" person probably can't sit on a horse all day, either. So it's a red herring.

The bottom line here is that nobody "needs" picnic tables, camp furniture, music players, or ice chests to have the wilderness experience that all of us here seek to enjoy and provide.

Let's be honest: Limits on unnecessary comforts and luxuries will not exclude anyone. And let's be clear: Nobody is challenging non-commercial wilderness visitors' ability to haul such items into wilderness, if they want to. The court decision we're discussing is about commercial services, and the law says that commercial services must be limited to the "extent necessary." So all of the unnecessary luxuries, comforts, and modern contrivances provided by some commercial packers should be curtailed - to comply with the law. This would provide a true wilderness experience for their clients, and for others around them. And it would minimize the number of animals, which are known to have a variety of negative impacts on the land.


What to me is worse is that the same organization (NPS) that justifies killing off any non native species that can potentially damage "unique flora or fauna" will allow an invasive species (their definition not mine) like horses to trample through the parks.

I wonder if "invasive" species weren't outcompeting "native" species or disrupting a native ecosystem, their management wouldn't be as important an issue. That said, isn't the whole point here that pack horses are to some extent damaging the local ecology and therefore need to be managed (perhaps unlike wild horses on NPS lands)?


Reading through the forums here, on High Sierra Topix, and the JMT hiker forum (sorry, don't have the name at hand), a distinct pattern emerges. Contributers who have identified themselves as having made their living in the backcountry and have spent seasons in the wilderness tend to have the more moderate and tolerant view of things, and recognize that things have to change but compromises can be made. Then there are the strident, "my way or the highway" posts that seem to come from contributers who identify themselves as hikers, environmentalists or otherwise champions of the wilderness as they see it. Their posts are usually filled with inflammatory descriptions of what they don't like and have a lot of value attached. Kind of like the high sierra hikers association's website. I'm guessing - and I could be wrong - that most of those contributers are more of a visitor to the backcountry - they take a trip or two (or five) a year into the wilderness and when they go in, they want little to no sign of enterprise. For them, it is an escape. For the people who work in the wilderness, it is not an escape, it is a way of life. Which point of view is more important? Or can they co-exist? Does one have to beat the other to death?
There's real value in discourse and truly listening to someone else's point of view, experience, and whatever else he or she is bringing to the discussion. One liners, zingers, derogatory remarks, and a holier than thou attitude brings nothing but animosity. Contributes nothing to working out a solution.
No matter what your personal comfort level is in the backcountry it is not something you can apply to everyone in some sort of blanket fashion and just because you don't need it doesn't mean someone else doesn't. I meet PCT hikers all the time who travel without a stove or tent. I've not heard one of them say to another backpacker that stoves and tents should be banned and / or aren't necessary. Need is relative and subjective and highly personal.
Again, if it gets down to what is needed and necessary in the wilderness, none of us may be there eventually - we will talk our little human selves right out of it. And I'm sure there are people on this forum who would be very happy with that, but I think not the majority. When you start pointing fingers at what someone else considers essential to have a comfortable backcountry experience you are essentially telling that person that you know what is best and I'm wondering, how did you come to have this authority?


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.