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
The Grand Canyon isn't a designated wilderness. That's the issue here, not that King Canyon and Sequoia are national parks.
Commercial services are allowed in wilderness areas only to the extent necessary, to realize the wilderness or recreational purpose of the area.
Zebulon is correct. Not only is the bicycle ban inconsistent with other permitted mechanical uses in Wilderness, but the ban hurts Wilderness advocates probably more than anyone else.
Thus does purity defeat pragmatism, and the perfect become the enemy of the good. Unless, of course, you favor no further Wilderness expansion. In that case, the Wilderness bicycle ban is one of your best allies and you should work to keep it in place.
It's kind of like U.S. policy toward Cuba. If you favor the longest possible continuation of the Castro brothers' regime, then by all means you should continue to support U.S. isolation of Cuba. Now, the purist exiles in Miami don't realize this, but it's still a fact. Or maybe they do realize it, but they get more enjoyment out of the current situation than they would if Cuba lost its status as a giant island prison and the Miami exiles then became less important (or couldn't cling to their self-importance). Hard to know.
Anonymous in turn is correct to this extent: "the NPS would deny that a fishing reel or a pulley for a bear bag are 'mechanical transport.' " The same would be true of the Forest Service, I have no doubt. As Zebulon pointed out above, once a bureaucracy has entrenched rules, it won't reconsider them easily, because it creates problems. In fact, one can hardly fault the NPS and FS for clinging to the no-bikes rule even if it runs counter to the intent of the Wilderness Act. If they got rid of it, they'd be closer to the correct law, but then they'd have lawsuits from the Wilderness Society, Wilderness Watch, the Sierra Club, the High Sierra Hikers Association, and all sorts of groups that might as well call themselves collectively Stewards for a More Sustainable America. No bureaucracy wants the hassle.
So the bicycle ban is going to remain in place unless someone challenges it in court.
Mike, I agree. The issue is Wilderness, not National Park status. Many people don't know that the two categories have a degree of overlap (i.e., much NPS land is also Wilderness), but that being a National Park doesn't mean one is operating a Wilderness as well. A good example is Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas (if I'm remembering the name correctly). No wilderness there, and no capital-W Wilderness there either.
"The ban hurts wilderness advocates probably more than anyone else"???
I'd say the biggest impediment to more wilderness designations are the Western congressional delegations.
And if "wilderness purists" are behind the ban on bikes and pushback against horses, does that mean those who want bike and horse access in wilderness areas want to defile official wilderness? (rhetorical question).
HSHA leaves leaflets on cars at trail heads to solicit funds and they come right out and say "Tired of stepping on horse crap?" It's obviousy about not wanting to share the trails with others. Some say 'follow the money' to get to the root of a problem, I say 'follow the self-interest.' Has anyone compared the impact of one horse to 500 hikers, because that's about the ratio.
Well Mike, in response to the Canyon not being in Wilderness designation, the opportunity to be an interactive part of the 105 year old history of Grand Canyon Mule Rides by all people including the handicapped, others with challenges besides everyone else young and old has been reduced by 75% to just 10 people day. Only the very lucky and happen to be in modern lingo, a 1%er need apply. For very dubious reasons especially when public benefit (and comments) are considered. The Canyon Ride to Phantom has been described as the best of it's kind in the World by many that have been everywhere and seemingly done everything while it has been reduced to token status. The culture is going in the wrong direction obviously and these opportunities for Americans and International visitors to experience things that are so foundationally good is something to be considered now as well as it was in the days of Mather and Albright.
Regarding bikes, I agree with another climber friend, who asserts that an essential aspect of "Wilderness" is pace, meaning on foot or hoof. Now I'm sure that concept can be attacked just as easily as defense of horse poop, but there are indeed safety issues involved. There are many blind curves with steep slopes waiting to catapult a biker/hiker collision or near miss into a much worse situation everywhere up there. I've seen kayaks being humped up out of the desert over Shepherd pass, no less, for an exploration of the
Kern river headwaters. That kind of mecha doesn't bother anyone or anything but the fishes, and they'll get over it. The trails we hike were built by the CCC , or date back to the turn of the century, or earlier, and were designed with humans and animals in mind, not bikes. Mtn bikers are fellow outdoorsmen, and I regard their passion with approval ;
just don't get an attitude about "the definition of Wilderness". Invest in a backpack, leave the wheels at home, and experience the luxurious pace of the walker.
Other than walking through a corral or chicken coop, the only time I've ever stepped in horse crap, moose crap, dog crap, buffalo crap, or any other end product was when I didn't look where I was walking.
Just sayin'.