Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion HSHA Lawsuit

Nope. It's from the Sequoia Kings 2008 stock report and derived from the number of nights that pack stations, administrative (NPS) and private packers report from their trips. It's not number of animals. It's the number of animal nights. So, one animal for one night is one animal use night (actually, it's a little more complicated 'cause horses and mules are given different multipliers, but let's not make this too complicated). Twenty five animals for one night is, yep, 25 use nights.

But the critical thing, as SierraNevada notes, is all the time you're spending on comparing human waste vs. stock totally misses the point. Nothing anyone has said, nothing the HSHA lawsuit has said, nothing in the federal judge's decision, makes waste the central point of any argument. Time to move on.

It's about total environmental impact and a demonstrated need (under the Wilderness Act) for stock to further wilderness values. Once again: where does the waste go (both people and stock)? Why are tons of grasses and forbes allowed to be removed from meadows without some level of environmental review? Why are stream banks and riparian areas allowed to be trampled? Are there ways to reduce, mitigate or eliminate these impacts such that stock can continue to bring people into wilderness?

Why do these discussions never include the admission by stock people that, "yes, stock causes a disproportionate and perhaps unacceptable level of impact relative to the number of people they bring into the wilderness. Here's how we all can work to reduce that impact."

Backpackers did this with minimum impact starting 40 years ago. A similar enthusiasm from the stock community would be a welcome contribution to the discussion.

You can loop endlessly on, say, who leaves the most waste in the wilderness, but it's not hugely helpful to an understanding of the problem or a solution.

George