The Wilderness was established to allow people to go into the wilderness, to maintain the sense of wildness before civilization came West. These groups are trying to change the intent of the Wilderness Act. The people who realized the need to protect the wilderness got to that wilderness on pack trips.
Bob: You've missed a lot of the discussion elsewhere on this topic. But it's hugely important to realize that HSHA is NOT (NOT, NOT, NOT) asking or implying that stock should be banned or eliminated. They did not argue that in any of their Complaints and none of the court decisions imply that has the potential of happening.
I hesitate to disagree with the esteemed Craig London, but he missed an important transition there as far as the Wilderness Act goes. The Act cover people going into wilderness. Stock are only allowed to the extent they support and are necessary to people visiting wilderness. The stock themselves have no intrinsic right to use wilderness.
There's a tendency to gloss over the environmental damage caused by stock. It's absolutely not just poop on the trail. It's removing tons of grasses each season; it's the pathogens, nitrates and nitrites in the manure and urine that wash into streams; it's the well documented changes in species composition as a result of grazing; it's the potential damage to riparian, small mammal and bird habitat as a result of loose grazing; and it's the well documented short and long term damage to meadows and stream banks from roll pits and erosion when horses go to drink.
While not perfect, carrying capacities for people are based on environmental and social criteria. As a result, only so many people per day are allowed to leave a given trailhead. Limits for stock are not based on environmental criteria but on how many horses are needed to carry people's gear. Again, HSHA and others are just saying that the environmental impacts of stock and the need for using them should be considered when determining how many should be allowed in wilderness. Also, the decisions have no effect on private use or Administrative use, so stock-supported trail maintenance will continue.
As part of the court record (both USFS and NPS) there were decades of HSHA trying to get the policy changed through negotiation, using evidence of the damage. They were blown off. The courts were a last resort and they've won in four separate federal court decisions.
George
