To be used in conjunction with policy statements for the
“Stock Free Recreation Experience” and “Wilderness Purity Concept.”
In some wildernesses, the managing agency has proposed
closing areas or restricting stock in the more pristine portions with the
rationale of ‘preventing future impact.’ Pack and saddle stock are limited to
the more heavily used and heavily impacted portions of the wilderness. In these
situations, it is presumed that backpackers have a greater need for solitude
than do recreational stock users. The law defines wilderness as an area that
provides the qualities of solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of
recreation and, in the preface, states that wilderness will be for the
“permanent good of the whole people” – not just backpackers.
Suggested Strategy: The managing agency should be
challenged to demonstrate that the restrictions on pack and saddle stock use are
the minimum necessary to preserve the character of the wilderness – a character
that included historic recreational stock use. – and to disclose how changes in
conditions since the passage of the Act justify restricting such use.
In other wildernesses, the agency has excluded stock from
the most popular, scenic, and heavily used areas with the rationale that use
levels will result in unsafe conditions for foot travelers. While it is
possible that differences in terrain conditions and trail management standards
could result in hazardous conditions in heavily used areas in one wilderness and
not in another, it is more likely this is a veiled attempt to accommodate
backpackers by prohibiting stock from the more popular areas and providing
opportunities for a “stock free” experience.
Suggested Strategy: The safety issue is harder to
address than the underlying issue of providing “stock free” opportunities,
because, to a certain extent, it is a matter of judgment. However, it is
reasonable to insist that, if the safety problem is the result of increased use,
that the different classes of use be reduced or restricted in proportion to the
amount that they have increased since designation, or, if that data is
unavailable, in proportion to existing use.
The Nature of the Complaints:
1. Impacts of pack stock on trails and campsites are
more severe than that of backpackers.
Research used to support this argument is usually
qualified by comments such as “all else being equal.” Of course all else is not
equal. There is little question that one equestrian with saddle horse and pack
animal(s) will have more impact than one backpacker. The arguments, however, do
not take into consideration that backpacking and hiking has increased many, many
times over and pack and saddle stock use has increased at very modest rates, and
in some areas it has actually decreased. The same types of impact attributed to
stock use can be caused by high levels of backpacking and hiker use.
All wilderness use results in some impact. Management of
wilderness is a matter of identifying the acceptable level of impacts (based on
Congress’s intent) and managing those. The severity of the impact depends on
many factors including the type use (equine or foot travel), amount of use,
resilience of the site, and the perception of those viewing the impact. For
example: the tracks on a wilderness trail of one motorized vehicle can be
perceived as ‘severe’ and can result in goal interference (a common measure of
social impact) even though no one observed the vehicle and the impact on the
tread of the trail was negligible. The perception of impropriety, in this
example, is unacceptable regardless of the tangible impact on the biological or
physical resource. Much of the impact of pack and saddle stock is a matter of
perception.
Through programs such as “Leave No Trace” the agency has
continued to ‘raise the bar’ as to what is acceptable in Wilderness. When the
Act was passed most popular wildernesses had substantially more “stock related
impact’ than they do now. Popular areas were historically used by parties of
100 and more horses (such as the Sierra Club outings in California) and for
periods of a month or more. Practices such as tying stock to trees, cutting
trees for corrals and tent frames, constructing drift fences over trails and
burying garbage were regarded as appropriate even for management personnel. Many
wildernesses had established camping areas with corrals, hitchrails, toilets,
campfire rings, and tables.
There was no mention in the law of eliminating these
features and making the areas more pristine. Congress determined these areas,
and the impacts they exhibited, were suitable as wilderness. Of course nearly
all of these facilities have been removed, and the large ‘tent camps’ of the
pre-wilderness years are history. Most responsible stock users would not
advocate a return to those practices, but the impacts, in many cases, still
remain.
Suggested Strategy: It is important that
recreational stock users insist that proposed management restrictions be
supported by substantive data demonstrating that undesirable changes are taking
place as a result of current use levels and practices, and not the impacts of
use that took place in the past. It is also appropriate to insist that the data
demonstrates conclusively that the impact is the result of pack and saddle stock
use and not the result of increases of total use and specifically backpacking
use. Trend in condition (change) is more important than the current condition
in making management decisions and should be based on good monitoring data taken
at 3 or more suitably spaced intervals (2 intervals is the absolute minimum to
determine change in condition). Preferably the benchmark for measuring change
should be when the area was established as wilderness, but in many cases the
data is simply not available. This provides an opportunity for stock users:
photos are a good indicator of change, and are often used in the scientific
community. If photos can be obtained (from horse users, the agency, popular
magazines or whatever source) of a site showing the condition years ago, and
re-taken from approximately the same location, with the same light conditions,
etc., it can be very credible evidence in a court of law.
Suggested Strategy Related to Trail Impacts: The
‘desired future condition’ envisioned by Congress when the Act was passed was to
provide for the public purposes of recreation and historic use. Pack and saddle
stock use is one such purpose. This suggests that managing the impact of pack
and saddle stock use on wilderness trails is a necessary management action to
meet Congress’s intent that wilderness provide “the benefits of an enduring
resource of wilderness… for the use and enjoyment of the American people…” The
majority of wilderness trails were constructed for equestrian use by crews
supported by horses and mules. In most cases, they were being managed and
maintained for that purpose when the Act was passed. Nothing in the law
suggests that historic pack and saddle stock should be restricted or eliminated,
or that it be considered in any way inappropriate. Quite often, the
unacceptable impacts related to use on trails is the result of inadequate
maintenance more so than the type of use they receive. This situation can be
the result of benign neglect, or it can be an intentional action to restore an
area to a more pristine condition, provide recreation opportunities of a more
primitive nature, and/or to exclude uses that are perceived to be unacceptable
and favor other classes of users (stock free areas for backpackers). Back
Country Horsemen must insist that changes in the character of use that existed
when the Act was passed be justified based on the letter and intent of law
rather than the preferences of other users.
2. Pack and Saddle Stock Spread Weeds: The image
that horse opponents portray of the equine is that of giant ‘reaper’ consuming
all herbaceous plant growth in its path and depositing a swath of seeds behind
itself as it passes. In actuality the equine is a selective eater, choosing
preferred grasses and, to a lesser extent, forbs. With few exceptions, it does
not prefer the plant species that we normally consider as ‘weeds.’ Depositing
weed seeds in the wilderness would be incidental at the worst.
The reason plants are ‘weeds’ is that they often have no
natural predators, parasites, or pathogens to limit their growth and expansion
in the plant community. They are spread by many vectors including wind, air and
water, and of course in the shoes of hikers, the tents and camp gear of hikers,
boaters, and of all campers, the tread of motorized vehicles, and, yes, to some
extent in the digestive system and hair of saddle and pack animals. The
distribution in wilderness and percent composition in the plant community is as
much the result of the managing agency’s refusal to treat the problem when the
occurrences were isolated and small as it is the ‘vector’ that introduced it
initially.
Wilderness ‘purists’ often regard many of the agronomic
species of grasses that are not native or indigenous to the site as ‘weeds.’
And, of course, they attribute their presence in wilderness to equines. The
extent that horses and mules have contributed to the presence of agronomic
species in wilderness has not been adequately researched. It must be recognized
that, for many years, these same species were used by the agencies to stabilize
disturbed sites as a part of management practices such as trail construction,
campsite (and cabin site) obliteration and wildfire erosion stabilization. Many
of these species were naturalized in the wildland plant community before the
Wilderness Act was passed.
Suggested Strategy: Back Country Horsemen must
insist that claims that horses are the cause of weed problems be supported by
substantive research that also addresses other potential vectors.
3. The occurrence of manure on wilderness trails is an
impact commonly identified by backpackers.
This is hard to address. Responsible stock users rake or
disperse manure in and around campsites, but it is impractical and in many cases
unsafe to dismount and disperse manure every time a saddle or pack animal makes
a deposit on the trail.
On occasion, however, backpackers assert that horse manure
results in water contamination and contributes to the spread of cryptosporidium
and giardia. Research conducted in 1995 at the University of California,
however, proved that claim to be unfounded.
Suggested Strategy: Complaints of manure on the
trail are largely perceptual in nature. It is an impact that probably must be
accepted if the managing agencies are going to honor the intent of Congress to
provide for public purposes of recreation and historic use, and one that should
be addressed in informational messages related to the history of pack and saddle
stock in wilderness.
Strong advocates of the wilderness concept were very aware
that compromises would be necessary in order to secure passage of the bill. The
bill was an attempt to accommodate and protect existing uses while preserving
the unique “character” that the areas possessed. In the Colorado Wilderness
Bill of 1980, responding to the Forest Service’s attempts (and complaints from
the “wilderness elite”) to eliminate or severely restrict commercial livestock
grazing, Congress clarified its intent to honor and protect uses that were in
existence when the Act was passed.
The commercial grazing example provides a precedent for
addressing perceptual impacts in wilderness. Congress gave the managing agencies
specific guidelines for managing commercial livestock grazing in wilderness.
Backpackers and other wilder-extremists perceived that commercial livestock
grazing was inappropriate in wilderness. Many wilderness managers shared that
perception. In the decade that followed passage of the Wilderness Act, the
agency imposed unrealistic restrictions on grazers, tried to close grazing
allotments, and denied grazers the appropriate tools to manage their livestock.
In response to requests from livestock grazers for relief, Congress interpreted,
in Congressional Reports, the 1964 Act’s intent in ‘guidelines’ that are now
part of Forest Service directives.
Specific portions of the guidelines that also suggest
resolution of the hiker/stock use conflict are:
n
“There shall be no curtailments of grazing in wilderness areas
simply because an area is, or has been designated as wilderness, nor should
wilderness designations be used as an excuse by administrators to slowly “phase
out” grazing.” (substitute pack and saddle stock use for grazing)
n
“Livestock permitted to graze in wilderness would remain at the
approximate levels existing at the time an area enters the wilderness system.”
(substitute numbers of pack and saddle stock for livestock permitted to graze)
n
“The maintenance of supporting facilities existing in the area
prior to its classification (including fences, line cabins, … etc.) is
permissible in wilderness. Where practical alternatives do not exist,
maintenance or other activities may be accomplished through the occasional use
of motorized equipment.” (substitute trails, and drift fences and other
recreational stock management facilities for fences, line cabins, … etc.)
n
The guidelines go on to say “Thus, if established in an area at
the time Congress determined that the area was suitable for wilderness and
placed the specific area in the wilderness system, they should be allowed to
continue.”
If Congress interpreted that a use normally considered as
“non-conforming” in wilderness should be guided by this rule of reason, it is
also reasonable to believe that a customary and conforming use should also be
subject to the same level of protection. This will be a ‘hard sell,’ however.
The conflict between hikers and backpackers is a conflict of values and
perceptions (feelings). It is difficult to counter feelings with facts,
especially when the values and perceptions of backpackers are shared by many
wilderness managers. Wilder-extremists are effective because they are
‘insistent’ and they are ‘persistent.’ If we are going to be successful in
preserving our opportunities, we need to be equally as insistent and persistent.
