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

I aplogize for posting again, but I wanted to explain myself a little better. I think we are getting into pretty dicey ground when we start going to court and trying to prove need. There's no need on the part of the wilderness to have us there. In fact, there's probably more a need to have us NOT there. So once we get into a courtroom and start debating need - where does it end?
I believe that mitigation for the impacts of stock use is an issue that has to be addressed and packers should fully embrace that concept and come up with workable solutions. Note: packers should come up with workable solutions. Just like ranchers have come up with workable solutions for the impacts of cattle grazing.
And to all of the contributers that just see the solution as kicking stock out of the backcountry - that's just not going to happen so pull up a chair (or rock or log) and start a dialogue that truly means something.


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.

Agreed. Which means this guy (Rep. Nunes) should listen to you!:

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.


Vickie
We are heading in a good direction here I believe, for everyone, but then the attorney's must find a way to win. A few have complained how far afield things go in this discussion but there is a common theme that is evident in all of todays issues, some people are just endowed with greater knowledge and authority over everyone else, lol! It's just that crazy out there. What is the most grounded of of all arguments is the absence of all the intellectual BS and that we all are just one step from compost material. Enjoy!


Vickie asks: "So once we get into a courtroom and start debating need - where does it end?" The answer is that it ends with commercial services. The law of the land allows commercial services in wilderness only to the extent that such services are truly necessary. So we're not talking here about non-commercial (i.e., private) visitors, and we're not talking here about administrative uses (such as rangers, trail crews, search-and-rescue, etc.). We are talking here about (and the court is considering) ONLY what commercial services are truly necessary to provide for wilderness recreation. And I have not heard a single valid argument why picnic tables, camp furniture, music players, or ice chests are necessary for anyone to experience the wilderness. I'm not trying to impose my own ways on others (that is irrelevant, and I won't even get into what those might be). But since furniture, amplified sound, and ice chests are not truly necessary for anyone to have a wilderness experience, the law demands that they not be provided to recreationists by commercial packers - especially since such luxuries require more animals, which is known to have many harmful effects on the land.


And I have not heard a single valid argument why picnic tables, camp furniture, music players, or ice chests are necessary for anyone to experience the wilderness. I'm not trying to impose my own ways on others (that is irrelevant, and I won't even get into what those might

Isn't the issue, to what extent these things are necessary without impairing the wilderness experience of others? If someone at their backcountry campsite has a folding chair or an ice chest, I'm not sure it would compromise my experience of the wilderness, just as my reading light and books aren't necessary for a wilderness experience, but I doubt would compromise anyone else's. Since the number of pack animals needs to be reduced because they're exceeding the capacity of the backcountry (destroying meadows, eroding and widening trails, waste produced, etc.), then is it less likely that much of that stuff can be hauled into the backcountry anyway?


Why don't we ask John Muir and those men and women of the culture that started it all?
Headed for the picnic tables, beds and other comforts that seem to be objectionable to modern eleetists. Having an idea what the sensibilities were at the time (before the 60's) I don't think they would be pleased.
http://archive.library.nau.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cpa&CISOPT...


More fallout from the Judge's action:
http://www.visitsequoia.com/bearpaw-closure-faq.aspx


I might have missed it, Lee but has Mr. Mackie weighed in on this particular judge shutting down support options for Sequoia-Kings including Bear Paw? I'd be interested to hear.


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.