Back Country Horsemen are witnessing an increase in the
number of proposals, and the number of restrictions being imposed, to restrict
or prohibit pack and saddle stock use of trails or areas of wilderness for the
purpose of providing opportunities for a “Stock Free” recreational experience.
These restrictions may be the result of decisions made in wilderness and travel
management plans, or simply the result of informal decisions to manage trails in
a manner that discourages or precludes use by horses and mules.
Since the Wilderness Act was passed in 1964, backpacking
has increased many, many times over while stock use has increased modestly, and
in some areas may, in actuality, have decreased. Changes in use practices and
recreation use dynamics have resulted in recreational stock users ‘going to the
hills’ with far fewer head of stock per party, and staying for much shorter
periods of time than did stock users prior to passage of the Wilderness Act. In
popular areas of the west, such as the Sierras in California, researchers
estimate that the number of stock today is as little as 50% of what it was in
the 1950s. Even in wildernesses that were predominantly stock use at the time
the Act was passed, such as the Bob Marshall in Montana, Forest Service
researchers report that backpackers replaced pack stock users as the primary
users sometime between 1970 and 1982.
As backpacking increased, managing agencies responded to
the complaints of backpackers by imposing restrictions or prohibitions on
stock. As this trend continues, recreational stock use is being eliminated from
large areas of our wildernesses. Pack and saddle stock use was a dominant and
accepted use of western wildernesses when the Act was passed, but the agency is
allowing this use to be displaced in an effort to accommodate rapidly increasing
levels of hiking and backpacking. Although the greatest change in the character
of western wildernesses from that which existed in 1964 has been the
unparalleled increase in backpacking, the bulk of management restriction has
been imposed on pack and saddle stock users. Where is the equity?
Our National Wilderness Preservation System grew out of the
desire to preserve the historic culture and skills associated with horsemanship
and travel by pack train. In his seminal work on the wilderness concept, Aldo
Leopold (Journal of Forestry, 1921) defined wilderness as “a continuous
stretch of country preserved in its natural state, open to lawful hunting and
fishing, big enough to absorb a two week’s pack trip …” In his classic book
“Sand Country Almanac,” he expounded that “Public wilderness areas are, first
of all, a means of perpetuating, in sport form, the more virile and primitive
skills in pioneering travel and subsistence.” Two examples “are as
American as a hickory tree; they have been copied elsewhere, but they were
developed to their full perfection only on this continent. One of these is
canoe travel, and the other is travel by pack-train.” Clearly the
experience that back country horsemen enjoy today is consistent with Leopold’s
historic vision of wilderness.
The mandate of Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577 section 4b) is
to preserve "the wilderness character of the area" and to administer such
areas for "the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific,
educational, conservation, and historical use." Pack and saddle stock is,
of course, one of those historical uses.
The conflict between backpackers and recreational stock
users is a conflict of “values,” and is based on the perception that horses and
mules are not appropriate in Wilderness. It is exacerbated by researchers who
base their opinions and recommendations on social trends rather than the intent
of law: “When stock use occurs in wilderness, high environmental, social, and
maintenance costs might be expected with this activity that benefits a
relatively small proportion of the visitors (David Cole 1990).
Watson, Niccolucci and Williams (1993) recognized a strong, consistent predictor
of conflict between hikers and horse users as a “general feeling of
inappropriateness of horse use in wilderness.” They went on to state that
“Translating this knowledge into management strategies requires acknowledging
first of all that hikers who dislike horses are in the minority.” In
managing the conflict, they recognized that “persuasive and educational
messages may reduce conflict between hikers and horse users,” and suggested
that “A message could be developed that emphasizes the historic role of
horses in wilderness exploration and the value of preserving wilderness horse
management skills in light of the overall decline in these skills. These skills
are also said to be part of our cultural heritage; this appeal may persuade some
hikers of the merit of allowing horse use in wilderness.” Other authors
suggest that informing visitors of what to expect in specific areas, and where
they might travel to avoid unsatisfactory experiences could reduce levels of
conflict. Little evidence exists that the agency has made any concerted
effort to adopt these recommendations or to attempt any methods other than
restricting pack and saddle stock use.
The actions of the managing agencies clearly afford
backpackers a favored status in the management of our wildernesses. However,
Congress was explicit that the law would not favor or create any special use or
user. The intent, as expressed by Senator Hubert Humphrey when introducing the
Wilderness Bill, was to "preserve in America an adequate system of wilderness
areas without sacrificing any other program." He went on to say that "No
use privileges of any kind will be created by this proposed law. The only added
responsibility ... will be to see that the areas in the System ... remain
wilderness -- as they now are. I reiterate, this bill deals only with
preserving wilderness as such in connection with various other land uses and
does not create any special privilege, nor provide for any special users.
Existing uses and privileges are respected in this bill, and private rights are
protected, ... this is not essentially a reform measure but rather a measure to
insure the preservation of a status quo which fortunately includes a great
resource of wilderness.” It is clear that Congress intended that existing
uses be protected -- even making provisions for aircraft landings, motorboat
use, commercial livestock grazing and similar uses where they had been
established when the areas were designated.
Unless it can be clearly demonstrated that restricting pack
and saddle stock use to provide “stock free” recreational opportunities (or for
any other reason) is the minimum action necessary to "preserve its wilderness
character" -- a character that includes this traditional and historic use –
Back Country Horsemen of America contend that such an action violates the intent
of the Wilderness Act! If total use of a wilderness, or area within a
wilderness, exceeds that which preserves the area’s wilderness character,
limitation or allocation of use must address all customary and historical user
types equitably.
References:
Leopold, Aldo. 1921. The wilderness and its place in
recreational policy. Journal of Forestry. 19:718-721.
Leopold, Aldo. 1966. A Sand County Almanac. New York:
Ballantine Books. 295p.
Public Law 88-577 (16U.S.C. 1131-1136). 1964. 88th
Congress. Second Session.
Cole, David N. 1990a. Ecological impacts of wilderness
recreation and their management. In: Hendee, John C.; Stankey, George H.;
Lucas, Robert C. Wilderness management. 2d ed. Golden, CO: Fulcrum
Publishing: 425 – 466.
Watson, Alan E.; Niccolucci, Michael J.; Williams, Daniel
R. Hikers and recreational stock users: predicting and managing recreation
conflicts in three wildernesses. Res. Pap. INT-468 Intermountain Research
Station.
Humphrey, Hubert H. 1956-57. The wilderness bill. The
Living Wilderness. Pp13-25.
