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

Lee Dalton:  No need to circle the wagons.  I have a problem with rudeness no matter how people get into the back country.  Backpacking is also second nature to me along with guiding people on stock.  I just don't see the need to even have the conversation we're having in my world.  It's the odd day in the backcountry that I don't give assistance in some way including very serious lifesaving aid on several occasions.   Legislating respectful behavior just doesn't seem to be the best way.   Ice chests and picnic tables?  How about outlawing hiking poles (I use them) as they poke holes in the trails and encourage erosion.   Trail and camp courtesy seems like a better solution.    


Connected, I think camp courtesy and good sense are what we are all after.  But I have also witnessed some of what concerns some people here when we see HUGE "wilderness" camps with big, big tents, and a table layout that looks as if it belongs in some five star hotel.  I once backpacked into the Wind River Wilderness and two days out spent much of the night listening to very loud amplified music echoing back and forth from cliff to cliff.  It was coming from one of those pack trips for the very, very wealthy.  They had even hauled in an electric generator.  That was back about 1990 or so.  There were at least twenty head of stock grazing near the river.

When I complained at the USFS ranger station in Pinedale a few days later, the person I talked to rolled his eyes and said he completely understood.  But, he said, certain people are able to obtain special privilges because they are well connected in high places.  He apologized and asked that I keep our conversation off the record.  The poor guy was as frustrated as I was.  Maybe even more so because he was caught in the middle.

If you provide good pack trips for paying guests, that's okay by me.  But if it resembles Hannibal's march across the Alps, then I do think that's just plain excessive.


I am a long-time horse person and an ecologist and I know for a fact that the impacts of horses on the backcountry of SEKI are ecologically unacceptable. If the NPS is to protect that land unimpaired in perpetuity, the horse use has to stop.


I've been reading and following along now for weeks (this forum and the High Sierra Topix forum) and I think that although much less "glamorous" or dramatic - the HSHA and other groups interested in reducing human impact in the wilderness would be more effective and their efforts less contentious if they turned their resources to educating the end users - us - the people. Ultimately we are the ones responsible for whatever damage has been done in the backcountry - the commercial pack outfitters are serving us. They aren't the villains, we are.
A mule can easily carry 150 lbs. As a former backcountry cook and packer, I cannot tell you how many times we arrived at the loading dock to find enormous piles of camping gear, coolers, float tubes, and other goodies. Why is there so much stuff? Because they don't know any better. And there's no one telling them not to bring so much stuff. Less stuff equals fewer mules in the backcountry.
I know, some of you are going to say that it is the packer's responsibility to educate the consumer. But I will tell you that no packer is getting rich on pack trips and a livelihood as a permitee, and pack stations are loathe to turn away a potential customer. And while I agree that education is key and coming from the pack stations should be a part of it - why not divert some of those enormous resources used up in court to permanently changing the mindset of those heading out into the backcountry?
I also take issue with the image of unpaid attorneys and staff toiling away in some office for the good of us all - attorneys like to fight, they like to win, and they aren't in the game for altruism and good vs evil. The law firm that represented HSHA stands to take home hundreds of thousands of dollars from the win in court - so I don't think anyone is going hungry for the cause.
These forums have been a great place for discussing not only the lawsuits but the bigger picture of human use in the wilderness - and if we can't quit squabbling I don't think it will be all that long before there's no permitted human use in the wilderness. Instead, we can simply appreciate that it is there, undisturbed and wild.


 I have to smile. If you think a horse can bring a lot of recreational stuff you should  see what gets hauled onto ORV accessible beaches.
My 2 cents is  there should be designated horse trails with a limit of x number of horses per visitor, ( I don't have any idea what,that number should be).


A reverent genuflect in the direction of the legendary Ron Mackie, who had the brilliant inspiration to hire me for the backcountry over 40 years ago. He was head of Yosemite Valley Horse Patrol then and even made an effort to teach me to ride. Like putting a cat on a leash, but a noble effort. And, of course, I second his "attaboy" to Kurt for hosting and writing on this fine site. To more signal and less noise.. .

I also take issue with the image of unpaid attorneys and staff toiling
away in some office for the good of us all - attorneys like to fight,
they like to win, and they aren't in the game for altruism and good vs
evil. The law firm that represented HSHA stands to take home hundreds of
thousands of dollars from the win in court - so I don't think anyone is
going hungry for the cause.

   A short note on pro bono representation. The law firm in this case is Morrison and Foerster. I had occasion to work very briefly with some of their attorneys many years ago on the Mono Lake case -- another one they took on pro bono. My impression was that they were, in fact, incredibly dedicated and idealistic: using the law to defend environmental principles they belived in and holding government agencies accountable to those laws.

I understood they liked working for Mofo (as it's known) because they knew they'd have the opportunity to occasionally work on cases that they felt good about. True, if they win, they're paid court costs, but it's a gamble and I doubt that much of an incentive for taking a case. After all, if they use that same time to represent a regular corporate client, they're assured of being paid. Why risk a possible loss if not for idealism? Also, the Mono Lake case went on for about 10 years, I think, and against the City of LA. It's hard to imagine a more formidible opponent nor a smaller return on such a long-term gamble.

George


So now their trying to get rid of ice chests and picnick tables?  I like Vickie's idea better and deal with a problem person to person.  Imagine that.  I'm being facetious not disrespectful.  Bay Area legal offices (there are tons of them) are not where the heart of this issue is.  It's people being respectful in the back country.  You can't legislate that.  Not as lucrative or as rewarding as kicking someone else off the trail to secure themselves as the greatest sissified individuals on the planet.  Not even going to say respectfully this time.  A humbling is in order to get "connected!"


Dear Connected, With all respect for your opinions, you still have not explained why anyone needs picnic tables or ice chests to enjoy a wilderness experience, and/or why such luxury stuff should be allowed at all, given that they clearly would require extra horses to carry them in and out. Is it simply a libertarian "anything goes" agenda, or is there truly some reason I'm not aware of why people need such things to experience the wilderness?


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.