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 - 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 wilderness designation has a far greater and immediate impact on them. Thus they (bikers) tend to be vocal opponents to Wilderness designation. The only ones more strident are the Snowmobilers and ATVers. They should have space to "play" but I sure don't want it to be in the space I am using or in a space that truly qualifies as wilderness.
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.
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.
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:
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.
Kurt - perhaps in the NPS areas (please identify) but there are plenty of areas outside the parks where bikers are strong opponents to wilderness designation. Here in CO is a prime example.
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.
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. Therefore, the situation persists and will do so until somebody decides to sue. The Sierra Club and other similar movements see bicycles as anathema to wilderness. There is no way to argue rationally, since it's rooted in some neo religious feelings toward nature and therefore not limited by such mundane things as fairness, facts or reason. :)
Also, there are quite a few people in Congress who have no idea that wilderness is off limit to bicycles. They weren't around when the original legislation was enacted.
The interesting long term trend is that the Sierra Club is greying and the young (at least those that are not sitting on the couch playing video games) are more likely to pick mountain biking over hiking.
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.
There isn't one significant Canyon character in the history of laws at the Grand Canyon that did not break the rules at some juncture, some routinely. Most all are held in high esteem having proceeded past the level of mediocrity that many hold as the limit of achievement. I say that with ultimate respect for the Canyon and all due respect for those entrusted with it. Many Canyon treasures including those of the human and equine variety, past and present. You have a great site here, Kurt.