No news yet on yesterday's court hearing. It will be interesting to see if the judge puts any new rules in place in light of the pressure from Congress. Any conditions will be temporary until completion of the Wilderness Stewardship Plan. At least this thread has moved past the dramatic claims about eliminating pack stock or eliminating trail maintenance.
I did more Googling about the HSHA. They have been trying to get SEKI's attention to this issue for many years through comments and long long letters. Most of their proposed rules seem reasonable to me, but I'm no expert in these issues. They quote SEKI's own studies about impacts and a history of broken promises about reducing the impacts. It also seems that most of their proposals are in effect in some other national parks so they can't be that far off track. I'm not saying SEKI should just adopt all the HSHA proposals, but they seem like reasonable negotiation points at the very least. This will all play out in the next few years in the Wilderness Stewardship Plan.
The HSHA also comment on issues in Yosemite. They are very much against all High Sierra Camps and want them removed. They don't propose any compromise solution on this issue. I disagree with them on this one. I think these camps serve a good purpose, and I commented to that effect on the Merced River Plan.
