After reading his 'declaration' I was left scratching my head - who/what exactly was the the declaration meant to support? The HSHA? The stock operators? Ostensibly, I have to assume the stock/pack operators. But, if I were the HSHA I might secretly be thanking the good Mr. Hufstedler for making some of their points.
It sounds he's actually planning on hiking (or "walking") to Whitney from whatever trailhead, he just needs the packers to schlep his stuff from campsite to campsite, so slightly different from riding the cog railway up Pikes Peak. I think the point he is attempting to make is that banning stock permits would reduce wilderness access for the elderly (and presumably the disabled, but he doesn't mention that) who are physically incapable of unsupported backpacking trips. However, he does a lousy job making his case and I doubt the judge is going to view his brief as anything other than a charming anecdote.
So, moving past the red herring arguments about banning horses or commercial packers from the wilderness, which nobody seems to be proposing - what are "reasonable" rules for commercial packers to adhere to? I have no horse in this derby whatsoever, but I'm interested in what others think.
Should there be no rules - no permits, unlimited horses anywhere they choose to go?
Are the current rules protecting the meadows and other sensitive habitats?
Are the current rules burdening commercial packers unnecessarily?
Should commercial packers take people to the summit of Mt Whitney with ice coolers and picnic tables?
Should the rules allow a train of 52 horses, but allow only 15 backpackers in a group? Or should groups of 52 hikers be allowed?
Should we have a completely different set of rules for each National Park and Wilderness area?
I don't have a horse in the race either, but I'm curious about what the data says about the impact of stock (and I don't mean tangental discussions of the relative volume of crap produced in yosemite). Someone said the HSHA is asking for increased grazing restrictions and a 20% reduction in commercial stock use. Do they have evidence to show these specific measures are likely to be effective, or is it just an arbitrary point to start negotiations from?
