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
Followup to George,
I meant to answer your question about something that's mechanical but not banned in the NPS and Forest Service regulations. I can think of two things. (1) unicycles (don't laugh; take a look at YouTube for amazing videos of mountain unicyclists traversing rugged terrain and descending steep trails that a hiker would be challenged to walk down). (2) pedal-driven kayaks (they have been commercially available, but I don't know if people use them).
Also, you said that you're a ranger in an area that is now Wilderness. Did mountain bikers lose access to trails there when it became a Wilderness? Or were the trails always unappealing to cyclists? Or are there no trails, as is true of some Wildernesses (e.g., the Sanhedrin in northern California)? If they did, did they do anything to try to preserve access? Do they ride them against the regulations even now? Again, just curious. I live in urban America and have no way of getting a sense of such things.
It seems to me that other forms of mechanical transportation (e.g. pedal powered kayaks) are tolerated in widerness because they don't require the historical users (hikers, equestrians) to share the trails. The ban of cycling is really based on personal perception. Plus after nearly 30 years of being banned, nobody bothers to question it (except for a few cyclists...). It's been accepted as the de facto situation. I can only see two ways of this changing: a sea change in what people do to enjoy the outdoors toward cycling or a lawsuit. In the meantime, in most wilderness places, we can still ride with very little risk of getting caught.
Boy, until I became a regular here at Traveler, I never knew that bicycles were another topic like circumcision, abortion, and long form birth certificates to avoid discussing due to the unending and unresolving arguments. Amazing.
Interesting point, Anonymous of 11:35 a.m. You're pointing out the practical reality, and perhaps a reason that there isn't a bigger push to change the rules. I've heard the same . . . it's exceedingly rare for anyone to be ticketed for being on a bicycle noncompliantly. Again, I have the impression that many Wilderness areas are barely visited by anyone.
Rick B., you're right. This issue ignites passions on both sides. However, I try not to let these debates stop me from getting out on my bike on the local (obviously non-Wilderness) trails. You can also add to your list the following terms: "gun" and "second amendment."
Unicycles & Kayaks! Ha. Who woulda thought? And that's kind of my point,
that everyone keeps coming up with ways to use wilderness that push the
envelope of what both traditionally and by law is considered an acceptable use.
And, you may be right:
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/4-30-bicycles-19767760
The CFR only mentions bicycles here. I vaguely remember something else in there
that might keep unicycles out but not up to the research right now. Note,
though, that this regulation (for NPS only) is not dependent on the Wilderness
Act. It just specifically bans bicycles except on approved roads in all
National Parks.
Ah, but wait, this just in:
So unicycles are out. But maybe there's hope for pedal driven kayaks!
I've worked mostly backcountry in Sequoia Kings National Parks in California
(and, CYA message: I don't in any way represent NPS, Sequoia Kings, or anyone,
anyhow other than me...). Mostly, the terrain is just too rugged for bikes. The
few people I've found have been walking them. But these areas (Yosemite and
Sequoia Kings -- both established in the late 1800s) have always been managed
as backcountry -- that is, their history of use predates possible competing
uses (like bicycles, motorized vehicles, etc). That history of use has, I like
to think, also created a respect among users for the wilderness concept. It's pretty
rare that people don't go with the program when it's explained to them (famous
last words...).
Those parks, anyway, are fairly well patrolled in the backcountry. It would
be unusual for a biker person to get through without a ranger hearing about it
or encountering them directly. The trails get a fair amount of use so someone
sees them and word gets around. I once found bike tracks and followed them to
where the guy was pushing his bike uphill. We can also radio ahead to the trailhead and have them met when they exit the backountry.
There's definitely a lot of designated wilderness that rarely sees
either users or patrol by the agency managing it. That's the ideal,
that a fairly wild chunk of terrain is out there for people to experience as it
was before European contact (a very arbitrary point in time, but useful as a
way to imagine wilderness).
And you’re also right that attitudes towards wilderness and a bike’s place
in it is evolving, as far as challenging the policy goes. I like to think,
though, that it can work in the opposite direction. That bicyclists – or whatever
user advocacy group du jour is mau-mauing the flak catchers – can be educated
to see how unique wilderness is in both area and philosophy. To that extent, this discussion is perhaps
contributing to that educational process.
George,
If education means: do as we've always done because that's the way we like it, I ain't learning. :)
It may seem that way to you -- and, in the short term, often does to me. I have, if I may modestly say, a very long and unique perspective on getting people on board with what we could call wilderness ethics. Over the years I've been involved with getting people to change their behavior and attitudes on a number of different issues:
Not burying their garbage;
Not camping on fragile vegetation;
Not washing dishes, laundry or themselves in streams and lakes:
Packing out all garbage;
Not building fires in certain areas;
Hanging food to keep it away from bears;
Carrying and using bear canisters to keep food away from bears;
restricting the maximum number of people who can start from a trailhead per
day;
restricting the maximum number of people who can travel together as a group;
no dogs;
restricting how many horses and mules can graze a meadow or how long they can
graze it;
etc., etc.
All of these regulations defining how people can use their backcountry met with initial resistance. Most were from ignorance -- not realizing how an individual action, when combined with similar actions of other users, can have cumulative impacts on wilderness. Talking to people, one happy camper at a time, brings most around. Some resistance was of the "I've been doing this forever and you're not going to stop me" variety. When kindly
remonstrations, brilliant logic and a winning smile didn’t work, then a citation -- even, alas, an arrest -- usually did.
Long term, the attitude and behavior always changes. What seems to happen is that a critical mass is reached and people see the new regulation as beneficial to their enjoyment of wilderness as well as contributing to protecting it. There’s also a subtle peer group pressure for others to do the same. Short term, as you point out, it's a bit frustrating.
George,
I appreciate your input, but your analogies are flawed. Cycling in wilderness and/or national parks does not impact the parks (certainly less than the mules convoys cited in the lawsuit), and therefore the federal agencies have no business banning it based on some specious philosophical ground that was not part of the Act to begin with. The ban has been in place for nearly 30 years, and cyclists attitude has not changed.
My opinion is that your beliefs reflect a generational gap between old proponents of wilderness (that is supposed to show us how wilderness was pre European but while using horses introduced by the same Europeans...) and the newer generation. Long term, I think that reason will prevail and bicycles will be allowed back in. It might be too late for me to enjoy the 50 millions acres locked up in the lower 48 but it won't be for my kids.
I heard that the riding in Muir woods is excellent at night though.