You are here

President Sent Legislation To Allow Commercial Horse Packing In Sequoia, Kings Canyon National Park

Share

Legislation that clears the way for the National Park Service to resume issuing permits for commercial horse pack trips in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks headed Friday to President Obama for his signature.

A group of California lawmakers made that announcement after the House approved a bill that includes changes by U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both California Democrats, that were approved by the Senate on Thursday.

The lawmakers, led by Rep. George Miller, were instrumental in advocating for legislation to resolve the issue after a court order prevented the Park Service from issuing the 2012 permits.

The current ban on commercial pack trips was spurred by the High Sierra Hikers Association, which filed a lawsuit 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 has not been trying to ban outright horse trips into the high country of the two parks, but rather has been seeking 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 has asked a federal judge to order the agency to rein-in the pack trips. The association was scheduled to ask the judge during a hearing next Wednesday 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.

Uncertainty over the matter has led Sequoia officials to temporarily ban the issuance of permits to commercial horse packers.

That move prompted the California lawmakers, not willing to await the outcome of the upcoming hearing, to legislate a solution. The bill passed by Congress directs the Park Service to issue permits for commercial stock operations in the wilderness areas of Sequoia and Kings Canyon parks. These permits are to be issued to local outfitters, packers, and guides whose businesses have been impacted by court-ordered ban.

Under the Senate’s revised legislation, the permits are to be issued at use levels that the Park Service determines are appropriate, a more permissive standard – meaning more permits could be issued – than the initial House-passed legislation, according to congressional aides.

The quick-moving victory was lauded by lawmakers.

“Summer visits are important to families, visitors, and small businesses in the area and from across California,” Rep. Miller said after the bill passed the House on Friday. “We owe a sincere thank-you to Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein for championing this issue, making needed improvements to the House-passed bill, and quickly acting to help Californians.”

The House gave the bill final approval under a unanimous consent agreement Friday afternoon.

Comments

I am glad that a group of hikers had the courage to speak up and draw attention to NPS's admitted failure to control the damage caused by packers.

Editorials from the Central Valley are hardly proof that the public disagreed with the High Sierra group. Such a sample selection is heavily biased toward individuals with wise use attitudes toward the wilderness, far right political views about conservation and the environment, and severaly warped concepts about what personal rights and freedom mean in the context of publicly shared resources. No doubt many of them find the very idea of government-managed national parks to run counter to their desire for free markets. Many of them would dismantle such a park system or, more likely, see the entire thing turned over to private or commercial interests for profit alone. Most in the Central Valley haven't ventured much farther than driving a vehicle through Yosemite Valley, and they have no idea what we stand to lose by not protecting these pristine areas and preserving them through laws and government regulation. Many of these individuals are easily (mis)led by politicians and industry types that prey on the misplaced fears instilled in them by radio and TV personalities who have convinced them that any public resource that government establishes and maintains for the well-being of citizens is "socialist."

Packers have a unfortunate reputation for being inconsiderate backcountry visitors. I've heard it from rangers themselves and have seen it myself both on and off trail. Riding into the backcountry with loads of car camping junk (I've seen huge coolers and chairs) strapped to overworked animals is a far cry from walking into the wilderness on one's own power. There is no such thing as the freedom to pollute and destroy national park lands for profit.


I happen to agree with you (imtnbke) about mountain bikers having minimal impact. Why they ever got banned is beyond me, but I feel it is a complete injustice to everyone. When "individual" groups work against each other instead of with each other this is usually the result, and yes the one with the most money usually wins...also wrong...

When any group of people start trying to have the other eliminated it is a major cause for concern in my opinion. The national parks, the wilderness is there for us ALL to enjoy, so be very careful when you agree with or are a group that is trying to have another banned because you and your group just might be next...The fact that we all enjoy nature in differnt ways is ok, it really is, but what is not ok is trying to tell someone else how to live and what they can and cannot do; such as the mountain biking and earlier problem with the packers....You see I am not a packer or associated with any of them in anyway other than my son worked for one for a few years, but I am smart enough as a horse enthusiast who enjoys the back country with her horse to know that the "hikers" wouldn't have stopped there...That would just be getting their foot in the door to later on have us all banned until it was just them, "the hikers" left to enjoy the wilderness that was intended for us all.

The National Parks (wilderness) is a way of life for some people, a tradition for others, therapy for many, a source of great education for children and adults, and lastly, just a beautiful breath taking experience that should be able to be experienced by everyone regardless of their intrests...

Mountain biker, I wish you the best and I will continue to work towards advocating for everyones rights for our parks, especailly yours...


While you stand correct at there not being a "freedom to pollute and destroy national park lands for profit" I must disagree with you about the inconsiderate view you say is posed of "packers" Are they so inconsiderate that they stop their whole mule and horse pack train to carry out an injured hiker? (seen it many times!) Are they so inconsiderate that they take the extra time to see to it that the handicapped also get to the back country? (some handicapped people and elderly who use packers must sit in chairs and as for the ice chests...many have medications that must be kept cold...if its large or not how does this affect you again?) Are they so inconsiderate that many and I mean many carry garbage bags in their saddle bags to pick up trash left behind at campsites by who knows? You must also be talking about them being inconsiderate again in the early season when there is still snow and its quite cold and freezing when they are fixing trails that are used by not only them but hikers as well? Maybe you're talking about the dust that the animals can create...well that is true there is dust and that is why most riders usually wear a bandana...Hey if you give me the address to your organization I will gladly donate a case or two of bandanas for your group..

Maybe some valley people do see Yosemite by car..who cares? Maybe thats their only chance...Who am I or anyone else to tell them its wrong or they shouldn't, that if they don't "hike it" or "ride it" then they just shouldn't be allowed to talk about it?

As far as a "warped concepts" of personal rights and freedoms from publicy shared resources....I guess I'm warped if I think they should be able to be enjoyed by all, no special group more important that the other and that includes mountain bikers...

You have tried to make it sound here like these valley individuals are idiots? You say they are so easily influenced by conservative radio ads and such....(you must be one of those who listens to KMJ knowing they are conservative talk radio only to get upset at some of our commercials, that you call us and tell us how wrong we are and that you would never buy a car or truck from us.....No Suits, No ties, No lies.....lol) Well heres the deal....they are not idiots, and you're right many of us do not like over regulated government...but that in no way means we want to see our National Parks destroyed anymore than you do. We just believe different and that is ok. What we feel is not ok is putting ones desires and beliefs over anothers with the intention of them being banned. I applaud you for being able to walk the wilderness by "your own power" however I kindly ask you to consider the many who cannot, but who also wish to enjoy the same sights and freedom as yourself...

This should not be a political debate here...this is about us all being able to enjoy the National Parks by whichever means suits us, all the while maintaining its pristine beauty. There clearly is enough for us all , and the importance of protecting everyone's right's of use is clearly the message I intended to make. Nothing more nothing less....


Thanks, Tammy. That's an excellent comment. And I apologize if I was too heated about horses and packstock in my prior comment.


Not a problem imtnbke...the mountain bikers have been wrongly banned and that too needs to change. Your frustration on this issue is absolutely justified and no apology necesssary but I thank you anyway.


This is funny. The website isn't letting me edit my prior comment. I meant to say that I was referring positively to Tammy's comment of 8:04 a.m. I see she's posted another one since, but I haven't read it yet.

Also, we don't have to be neutral toward all uses, even as we recognize that there are forces out there that would like us to be divided and squabble among ourselves. I've seen enough outfitter-pack-train damage to wildlands that I could never become enthusiastic about commercial packstock trains on public lands that mountain bikers and hikers like to visit. In that sense, I agree with Central Valley Backpacker's comment above. But Tammy's comment about the politics of this issue is very important and I need to keep it in mind.


Our comments crossed again! Thanks, Tammy. I look forward to reading further posts from you.


Yes, the wilderness is certainly there to be enjoyed and accessed by all who desire to experience its expanse and beauty, but commercial packers and those who profit from the wilderness aren't necessarily there to enjoy those things. Their sole purpose is to profit from it. And how often do people seeking profit stop in the interest of the environment? Sadly, they rarely do. That is the danger here. At what point does wilderness exist for its own purpose? Not for human enjoyment or pleasure or profit but for the flora and fauna that live so precariously in its often hostile environs?

When human activities (even hiking) begin to impact this environment in irreversible ways, will humans have the integrity to stop doing what they are doing, even if it is profitable? Take a look at the oceans to find your answer. I don't want to see the Sierra turned into the same kind of garbage dump because a very small group of people feel that they have a right to profit from the wilderness or access it at all costs. These activities must be limited and tightly controlled and watched carefully for conflict of interest. NPS itself admitted that it had ignored the negative impacts of stock in SEKI. That right there is a cause for serious concern.

I've tired of hearing that this irreplacable natural thing and that irreplacable natural thing must be sacrificed on the altar of the economy, profit, or access. That sort of profits-first, humans-first thinking has gotten us into the many messes we're in today.


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.