Do you believe that the current stock restrictions within Sequoia-Kings N.P. (I posted them in another thread) adequately address the stock impact?
I am assuming that you happen to be a ranger within that park. Do you agree or disagree with the current restrictions? If you disagree with them, what would you like to see changed?
I agree, that in the past, packers have not been agreeable to changing their habits, but in conversations I have had with local packers, they indicate that they are doing their best to comply with current regs. Regardless of past history, do you believe packers are complying with the current regs?
One more question. What would be the overall impact of N.P. backcountry trail work if pack stock (commercial contractors and government) were no longer used for that work? How would it get done?
Bob:
Excellent on all counts and goes to the heart of the problem! For whatever it's worth, I've been a backcountry ranger in Sequoia Kings for over 35 years (and Yosemite before that). CYA message: nothing I say here represents nothin' official from NPS, my beloved superintendent (whose photo hangs before me even now, incense burning below it...) or President Obama.
Current stock regs. don't address the main problems because, on the whole, they don't address the ecological impacts of stock. Meadows can be closed to grazing but often only AFTER damage reaches a critical level.
All but a very few meadows along trails are open to grazing, leaving none as examples of what a pristine alpine ecosystem should look like. I believe this is central to the responsibility of wilderness policy to provide to visitors. Critically, the effects of grazing on nesting habitat of riparian birds, small mammals etc. is just not known or in any way monitored.
You've still got manure and mechanical impact (roll pits, runoff, stream bank erosion when animals go to drink) from all levels of stock use.
I think it's absolutely possible to significantly reduce impacts from stock and still keep all of the pack stations in business. I'm definitely in favor of these guys being able to bring people into the backcounty by stock. But they really have to go with the program as far as reducing their impact goes.
What I'd do (were I King!) is ban almost all grazing by stock above, say, 9,400 feet. I'd require outfitters to bring in feed if they want to camp with stock in meadows above that arbitrary altitude. It represents a very rough dividing line between extremely fragile alpine meadow and habitat and meadows that can better recover from some levels of grazing.
Some outfitters are already bringing in feed for most all of their trips. I think Craig London is among those who decided it's just easier. They don't have to go on a major hunt for their animals in the morning. They can just feed from grain or pellets; load up and be off the next morning. Others have spent two and even three days stuck because they can't find their stock when they let them loose for grazing.
I'd work with the packers to agree on certain meadow that were OK to camp at and establish hardened (bare ground) areas where they'd tie up their animals. They'd absolutely understand to rake the manure over a wide area before they leave. Some meadows, they might not be able to camp at all, to preserve the absolute pristine feel to them (horses still have to go to water, roll to get rid of the dust and sweat -- that's a potentially serious impact in some areas).
But (again, were I King) would have bins (e.g. bear boxes) where packers could cache feed between trips to reduce the need for more animals to carry feed per trip. Likely at a ranger station or some other already impacted area.
The current lawsuits have only been directed at commercial packers. However, in NPS, administrative stock use has a major number of use nights per season. (Watch the careful wording ahead...). It does not seem unreasonable or impractical that perhaps this could be significantly reduced as well with no effect on trail maintenance support (and where combined with helicopter support, as is currently the case).
g.
