Mt Whitney Webcam
Mt Williamson Webcam
Feature Topics
Who's Online
0 registered (), 6 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
3952 Members
10 Forums
5759 Topics
52050 Posts

Max Online: 1443 @ 07/29/19 08:40 AM
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#23357 - 04/27/12 01:45 PM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: CMC2]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7872
Loc: Fresno, CA
Originally Posted By: CMC2
Congressman Nunes from Visalia introduced a bill that passed the House unanimously. It is now on to the Senate. The bill REQUIRES that packers be allowed to resume taking stock into the back country and basically ignores or over rules the pending Judges decision in May !! So the HSHA Lawsuit is over turned once this bill is passed into law.

Since I do not know how to post an e mail which advised me of this, I have asked Steve to help me out and post it. I told you guys I don't know how to do all this modern stuff. Just a map and compass guy. Once on the WZ you can read all the details.

Here's the email sent out by Devin Nunes:
Originally Posted By: Devin Nunes
From: Rep Nunes
Date: April 27, 2012 12:24:12 PM PDT
To: "NEWSLETTER-CA21@ls1.house.gov"
Subject: House Bill Instructs National Park Service to Stop Horsing Around with Jobs - passed by unanimous consent
Reply-To: Rep Nunes

Dear Friends,

Earlier today, the House moved swiftly to pass a bill that would restore pack animal access to the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. The bill, which I introduced late yesterday, was rushed to the House floor thanks to a bipartisan agreement by House leaders which specifically cited imminent job losses and park access issues (press release).

Earlier this month, I brought the case of our backcountry horsemen to the attention of the Obama Administration. I was seeking help in my efforts to protect park access to commercial pack operations. These hardworking men and women who offer a unique and time-honored service to mountain visitors were the target of a lawsuit. Radical environmentalists wanted horses and mules removed from the parks. And thanks to an activist federal judge, the backcountry horsemen lost on the basis of a technicality (see more here).

The court ruling against the backcountry horsemen sent the Park Service into full retreat, as demonstrated by their reaction to my request for assistance. The Park Service informed me that commercial pack operations were going to have to wait until a new plan for issuing permits was completed and endorsed by the court. This meant that for the 2012 calendar year, backcountry horsemen were out of luck. Hundreds of jobs are at risk.

The bill that passed the House today requires the Park Service to issue permits for the next two years, immediately restoring commercial pack operations. At the same time, the Administration will be able to work with the federal court to establish a permitting process that brings the Park Service into compliance with the court ruling. This common sense solution saves important jobs, preserves access to the wilderness, and respects the judicial process.

The Senate must now act. Given the unanimous consent agreement that enabled House passage today, there is no excuse for the Senate to fail to take up and pass the measure as soon as it is received.

Thanks for your interest in this important issue.

Sincerely,
Devin Nunes
MEMBER OF CONGRESS

If you would like to contact me, please visit my website at www.nunes.house.gov. If you would like to be removed from my mailing list, please send a message to LISTSERV@LS1.HOUSE.GOV with the text "SIGNOFF NEWSLETTER-CA21" in the body of the message. You can also opt out of all electronic communications by visiting www.nunes.house.gov and following the instructions.



Law would revive horse packing in Sequoia, Kings Canyon parks
By Michael Doyle - Bee Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- In a rare show of bipartisanship, lawmakers on Friday joined forces to keep commercial pack operations open in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks for at least the next two years.

Acting with unusual dispatch, House Democrats and Republicans agreed on legislation moving the National Park Service to issue the permits for 2012 and 2013. The legislation approved by voice vote will let some 16 pack operators continue taking vacationers into the parks' designated wilderness areas.

"Time is very crucial here," noted Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., the chair of the House Natural Resources Committee. "We must act now if there is any hope for preserving the season."

The legislation initially authored by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, essentially overrides a park service decision issued as a result of a lawsuit filed by the High Sierra Hikers Association. The organization sued the park service three years ago over wilderness management.

In January, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled the park service violated the Wilderness Act because its 2007 general management plan for the neighboring national parks did not adequately deal with the issue of commercial stock. In response, the park service said it would not issue the stock permits until the question was resolved in court.

"I was highly disappointed by the park service's refusal to work with the federal court on an agreement to issue permits in time for the current season," Nunes declared Friday morning. "This legislation will allow commercial pack operations to continue in the parks while permitting changes are made to comply with the court's decision. There are hundreds of jobs at stake."

The legislation still needs approval by the Senate, which could happen quickly.

Top
#23360 - 04/27/12 02:39 PM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: Steve C]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1148
Loc: NorCal
"I was highly disappointed by the park service's refusal to work with the federal court on an agreement to issue permits in time for the current season," Nunes declared Friday morning.

You can lead a SEKI to the negotiating table, but you can't make it think.


Edited by SierraNevada (04/27/12 03:30 PM)

Top
#23524 - 05/02/12 11:32 PM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: SierraNevada]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7872
Loc: Fresno, CA
Sequoia & Kings Canyon N.P. has posted a news release here:

May 2, 2012   Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Requests Court
                to Allow Commercial Pack Stock Use in Wilderness Immediately
                (PDF,   JPEG pg 1,   JPEG pg 2)

Part of the release:
Quote:
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks News Release
For Immediate Release: May 2, 2012
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Requests Court to Allow Commercial Pack Stock Use in Wilderness Immediately
The National Park Service (NPS) has requested permission from the U.S. District Court to allow Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (Parks) to issue commercial use authorizations for pack stock operations in the Parks' wilderness immediately. This is part of ongoing actions by the NPS to resolve litigation over commercial pack stock use in the Parks, while minimizing potential impacts to the Parks' visitors, pack stock outfitters, and local communities.
...
• Judge Seeborg's ruling directed that the NPS does not have the authority to issue commercial use authorizations (permits) for pack stock operations in the Parks' wilderness, pending completion of a separate ruling on remedy for the violation. As a result, the NPS is obligated to respect the court's January 24, 2012, ruling. Therefore, the NPS has not issued permits for pack stock operations in the Parks' wilderness this year and cannot do so until further determination by the court.
...



Top
#23527 - 05/03/12 03:33 AM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: Steve C]
Harvey Lankford Offline


Registered: 11/10/09
Posts: 1024
Loc: Richmond, Virginia
That Judge probably drives a SUV rather than a Prius.

Top
#23529 - 05/03/12 06:42 AM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: Steve C]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1148
Loc: NorCal
And here's the other side of the story from HSHA to provide a more complete picture of the situation:
Hikers' Group Urges Compromise on Packer Permits at Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Parks


To summarize, all NPS has to do is come to a compromise with the HSHA on how to remedy the situation for the next couple seasons or so until the Wilderness Stewartship Plan is completed. HSHA has put a set of proposals on the negotiating table to resolve this and get the packers moving again. If the NPS does not negotiate, the judge might simply convert the HSHA proposal to an order on May 23rd anyway.

At least the NPS is starting to take commercial permit requests to expedite things when it gets resolved.

Edited title of link

Top
#23578 - 05/05/12 05:21 PM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: CMC2]
lucky Offline


Registered: 03/29/12
Posts: 5
Loc: CA, USA
I am representing the horses because they can't speak for themselves. It is soo funny to see how you now understand human waste is soo much larger but continue to maintain that the human waste is less disagreeable than horse waste because there are a few beloved solar port a potties in the front country. It boils down to human sh.. stinks less. Maybe some of yours smells like roses. Smile! The sad truth is that a lot of misinformed and misguided are making noise because they don't get it. I agree that most if not all the decisions made for the wilderness are driven by political issues. Using law suits to make policy is as extreme as it gets in my opinion. It was intended to be the scientists and congress and not the courts making these decisions. Thank you Sierra Club!
"I attached a copy of Attached is a declaration by Seth Hufstedler who is a senior counsel with the law firm Morrison Foerster (the law firm for High Sierra Hikers Assn.) who is 89 years old and regularly hikes the sierras. Seth strongly supports the commercial packers and has stated as much in this declaration to the court. Seth regularly uses commercial packers to bring his gear to him at high altitudes after he has hiked there, and the gear includes those luxury items that HSHA thinks need to be banned in the wilderness. I think it is so nice to see a lawyer for the firm that is suing SEKI supporting the commercial packers. Sweet justice."

MELTNDA L. HAAG (CSBN t32612)
United States Attorney
JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)
Chief, Civil Division
MTCHAEL T. PYLE (CSBN 1729s4)
Assistant U. S. Attorney
Northern District of Califomia
150 Almaden Blvd., Suite 900
San Jose, CA 951 13
Telephone: (408) 535-5087
Facsimile: (408) 535-5081
Email: michael.t.pyle@usdoj . gov
IGNACIA S. MORENO
Assistant Attorney General
Environment and Natural Resources Division
CHARLES R. SHOCKEY (D.C. Bar No. 914879)
Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Natural Resources Section
501 "I" Street, Suite 9-700
Sacramento, CA 958 1 4 -2322
Telephone: 916-930-2203
Facsimile: 916-930-2210
Email: charles. shockey@usdoj . gov
Attorneys for Defendants
I.]NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTzuCT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
HIGH SIERRA HIKERS ASS'N,
Plaintiff
DECLARATION OF SETH M. HUFSTEDLER
Case No. 3 :09-cv-04621 -RS
V.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al.,
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF SETH M.
HUFSTEDLER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
INJUNCTION
Date: May 23,2012
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION RE: REMEDY
Case3:09-cv-04621-RS Document103-19 Filed04/24/12
Page 1 of 4

I, Seth M. Hufstedler submit this declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C . 1746 and declare as
follows:
1 . I live in La Canada - Flintridge and have been a resident of the state of California
since 1928.
2. I graduated from the University of Southem California and Stanford Law school. I
have practiced law in California since 1950, and now am a senior of counsel at the firm of
Morrison & Foerster, in the Los Angeles office.
3. I have spent a good share of my life in the outdoors, and especially in the Sierras.
My family and I have a cabin at Lake Huntington, which my mother acquired in about 1946 and
has been in my name for many years. I have spent many happy years walking and camping in the
surrounding mountains, and on many occasions have used packers to carry the equipment. I have
walked the entire Pacific Crest Trail from Mexico to Canada, and about one-third of the trail
south, from Canada to Mexico. In addition my wife and I have made 13 trips to Nepal, where we
have trekked more than 1500 miles in the Himalayas. (There the "packers" are Sherpas, many of
whom have become good friends.) In walking on the Pacific Crest Trail, our group has used
packers on the John Muir trail both north to south and south to north. We have also used packers
on several other stretches, including in the Cascades. However, we were walking and they
carried the equipment.
4. Some years ago I started climbing Mt. Whitney on my birthday. On walking the
Pacific Crest Trail, the second time on Mt. Whitney, it turned out to be my birthday. (The time
before was a couple of days after my birthday.) So I later climbed it some more. On my 80th
birthday, a group of friends and I climbed it from the'West side, and were on top on my birthday.
That seemed good, so on my 85th birthday, several of us went up again, also on the West side.
However, we ran into a "rogue" storm which was not anticipated, and above Guitar Lake the
temperature was 20 and the wind 50 mph. We had only light summer equipment and at about
13,000 my hands began to freeze. After restoring circulation three times, by rubbing them, it only
made sense to come down, so we did and did not climb to the top. So on my 87th birthday we
went up again, from the West. It was easy and we had a relaxing sunny lunch on top.
DECLARATION OF SETH M. HUFSTEDLER
Case No. 3 :09-cv-04621-RS
Case3:09-cv-04621-RS Document103-19 Filed04/24/12
Page 2 of 4

5. The point of this is that on each of those trips to the top, we had excellent packers.
They were careful to respect all of the rules. On the last trip, the animals could not be kept above
10,000 feet, so the packers had to take them back down when the walkers were camping above
that. On many of the trips where we have had packers, the packers often were cleaning up debris
that backpackers had left.
6. The Rangers at Rock Creek and Crabtree, who were excellent, reached the
conclusion that I was the oldest male to climb Whitney. Not the oldest person - a woman of 91
climbed it about 15 years ago.
7. My 90th birthday comes up in September, and I plan to walk up to the top again, if
that works out. The permits for September are already gone, and packers are not permitted on the
Portal Trail to the top. At my age, climbing with a backpack is a lifile too strenuous, and making
the trip in one day would be too much.
8. Naturally, therefore, I would like to take the Vy'estern trall again, and have packers
carry the gear up to the "last water" which is a pool at almost exactly 12,000 feet. They still have
to return the horses below 10,000, as before, at night.
9. If the new severe limitations are imposed, this cannot really occur. We could
camp four nights, or so, going in, and need the camping equipment and food. Particularly, ice
chests to keep some fresh food are necessary, and they do not cause litter or damage the
"wilderness experience." A folding camp chair and a table for the cook are not going to damage
the wilderness. What these proposed limitations will do is greatly limit the ability of more elderly
people to enjoy the experience.
10. I recognize it is not great loss to the world if I do not climb Mt. Whitney at 90, or
at92, if I am around that long. But depriving everyone of advanced age to have the ability to use
pack services to carry equipment and suitable food is a tragedy. I confess I have had my share of
fun and appreciation of the wilderness, but denying the elderly the right to have adequate use of
the packers help would be unforgivable.
DECLARATION OF SETH M. HUFSTEDLER
Case No. 3:09-cv-04621-RS
Case3:09-cv-04621-RS Document103-19 Filed04/24/12
Page 3 of 4

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing
statement is true and correct.
Executed this 23th day of April,2012, at Los Angeles, California.
DECLARATION OF SETH M. HUFSTEDLER
Case No. 3 :09-cv-0462 1-RS
Seth M. Hufstedler
Case3:09-cv-04621-RS Document103-19 Filed04/24/12
Page 4 of 4


Edited by CaT (05/06/12 06:56 PM)
Edit Reason: Deleted inconsequential line-numbering in what is obviously a scanned and pasted document

Top
#23580 - 05/05/12 05:42 PM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: lucky]
amg Offline


Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 18
Loc: los angeles
HSHA is represented by MoFo? I wonder who's bankrolling the legal fees.

This is veering off topic, but I had to laugh when he said that ice chests for fresh food are particularly necessary. I understand not being able to carry a pack with all your gear when you are 90, and I understand maybe needing a little table to cook on if you can't crouch over a stove. However, "needing" an ice chest full of food doesn't really help his case. Sorry, but that's pretty much the definition of a luxury. If he said he needed a little one for medication that would be different.

Top
#23582 - 05/05/12 09:43 PM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: amg]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7872
Loc: Fresno, CA
> I wonder who's bankrolling the legal fees.

When they win a case, I think they can often collect from the losing side.

I hope Seth Hufstedler DOES make it to Mt Whitney when he is 90!!!

Top
#23583 - 05/06/12 01:31 AM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: Steve C]
amg Offline


Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 18
Loc: los angeles
Originally Posted By: Steve C
> I wonder who's bankrolling the legal fees.

When they win a case, I think they can often collect from the losing side.


Yes, but that's never a given, and unless the lawyers are working on a contingency basis they're still going to have to pay upfront.

Quote:
I hope Seth Hufstedler DOES make it to Mt Whitney when he is 90!!!


I do too. However, I'm still curious as to whether it's some magical side-effect of being almost 90 that renders him unable to subsist on backpacker chow for a few days, or if he has had this problem his whole life. wink

Top
#23584 - 05/06/12 09:33 AM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: amg]
KevinR Offline


Registered: 11/03/09
Posts: 595
Loc: Manchester, NH
In Mr. Hufstedler's 'declaration' his description of hiking the PCT and Mt Whitney illustrate differences which I (and I suspect others) define hiking the PCT, Whitney. For example - if I take the train to within a 1/4 mile of the summit of Pike's Peak, and then walk the rest of the way, have I walked Pike's Peak?

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.

Top
#23585 - 05/06/12 10:08 AM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: Steve C]
Ken Offline


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 742
Loc: Los Angeles
On the PCT-L, from "Dr Bob":

Quote:
So here I was recently, near the middle of my 2 week stroll north from the
border, when I paused for a break just beyond where the former Lucky 5 water
cache used to be. I was actually right at the bottom of the short,
quasi-steep side trail which comes down from the highway at the Lucky 5
Ranch. Suddenly there was noise descending that side trail. I jumped up and
here's a pleasant gentleman coming down that side trail on horseback.
followed by another. and another. I asked which way they were headed on the
PCT and moved my pack and myself accordingly. He expressed appreciation for
my minimizing any scare to the horses and informed me that there were 52
(fifty-two) horses coming.



How many of you have witnessed a 52 horse caravan on the PCT? In my
previous 5 times over this particular section, I'd never seen a horse.
Farther north, I've been passed by groups of 4-5 or an occasional short pack
train. but 52 ??? Down that side trail they came, the horses already sweaty
from an earlier segment of their trail ride. As I stood there watching, and
counting, and talking to the horses, the PCT ahead to that shoulder just
north of the Lucky 5 side trail was completely filled with nose-to-tail
horses and riders, as far as one could see. It was a truly amazing sight.
It turned out that on up ahead they just went to the Sunrise turnoff and
departed the PCT.



As I started on after them, I thought, OK, *HERE* was a great opportunity to
see the trail damage 52 horses can do to the PCT. Conditions were dry at
the time and I was quite surprised that the treadway was churned up only
modestly and that on rockier sections I could not even tell that a horse had
just passed, much less 52 of them. In my mind, I compared that to the
now-dried trail south of Mt Laguna (between Long Creek crossing and the
trees up top) where I had dealt with hundreds of 2-inch-deep dried boot
tracks from hikers who got caught in that big rain/snow event a week before.
Forgive me, but the many foot-long sliding prints of the person in those new
5-toed shoes - five sliding/skidding toes now etched in the dry mud - were
funny looking. Not to him/her at the time, of course. Ok, wet then for the
hikers and dry now for the horses. If the horses had been there under wet
conditions. different story.



Ah, and for us horse poop complainers, only 4-5 deposits from 52 horses in
the few miles ahead. They must have lightened their load, so to speak,
earlier in their ride.



I will long remember that probably once-in-a-hiking-lifetime, slow-motion,
"civilian cavalry" attack on the PCT.



Dr. Bob

Top
#23599 - 05/06/12 07:58 PM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: lucky]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1148
Loc: NorCal
These horse stories are charming, but unfortunately this thread seems to have turned into a big red herring. The debate is about specific rules governing commercial packers.

Did someone call for banning horses or commercial packers in the wilderness? I don't recall reading one person in this thread who thinks horses should be banned from the wilderness.

The HSHA has not called for banning horses or commercial packers from the wilderness. They've repeated over and over again they are not trying to ban horses or commercial packers in the wilderness.

The HSHA lawsuit and their proposed compromise is entirely about establishing new rules or modifying existing rules governing permits for commercial packers. Some of these rules are in place in other National Parks but not in Sequoia-Kings Canyon. How are those rules working in other parks? This discussion should be about the specific rules that are being proposed - are they reasonable or not? Again, the HSHA is NOT trying to ban horses from the wilderness.

It's unfortunate that sometimes it has to come to a lawsuit to get any action from an agency. If all other reasonable efforts have been exhausted with that agency, then a lawsuit is perfectly appropriate as a last alternative.

Top
#23608 - 05/06/12 11:39 PM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: SierraNevada]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1148
Loc: NorCal
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?

Top
#23618 - 05/07/12 04:58 AM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: SierraNevada]
Bob West Offline


Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 828
Loc: Bishop, CA, USA
I'm not sure that I would trust the HSHA or any other similar groups assurances that they don't want pack stock banned from the Sierras. Slowly, year after year, pack stock restrictions are becoming tighter, while restrictions on backpacking have been static for years.

No, horses (I assume you include mules in this category) should not be allowed to go wherever they want. That is not the current situation at all.

The restrictions seem to be working on the east side of the Sierras. I have discussed this with several local packers and, while it makes their work more difficult, they are living with it.

Yes, in some cases it does put an unnessary burden on packers. For example, the requirment that pack trains only be allowed to turn around at a few designated spots along the trail.

Have packers (commercial or government) ever taken pack stock to the summit? This might be a "red-herring" question. No, don't allow pack stock on the summit.

Each area ought to be considered individually.







Edited by Bob West (05/07/12 04:59 AM)

Top
#23625 - 05/07/12 08:07 AM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: Bob West]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1148
Loc: NorCal
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Bob. I don't know much about this HSHA group or their ultimate motives, but let's look at their actions. After they won in court, they put a set of rules out there for compromise instead of trying to get the court to stop commercial packing.

Top
#23639 - 05/07/12 10:57 AM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: Bob West]
amg Offline


Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 18
Loc: los angeles
Quote:
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.

Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
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?

Top
#23662 - 05/07/12 04:04 PM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: amg]
Bob West Offline


Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 828
Loc: Bishop, CA, USA
Yes, it might be an opening gambit in their proposeds negotiations. Sometimes, showing a little flexibility by party A will cause party B to be open to increasing demands by party A. Sounds a little like something from The Art of War, by Sun Tzu!

Top
#23681 - 05/07/12 06:54 PM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: Bob West]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1148
Loc: NorCal
Originally Posted By: Bob West
Yes, it might be an opening gambit in their proposeds negotiations. Sometimes, showing a little flexibility by party A will cause party B to be open to increasing demands by party A. Sounds a little like something from The Art of War, by Sun Tzu!

That's a bit cynical, Bob. Negotiations usually end up somewhere in the middle as long as people act like adults.

As for the science behind how effective these regs are, that's actually one of the points HSHA has been complaining about. They should get more data during the process to draft the Wilderness Stewardship Plan.

Top
#23961 - 05/15/12 07:14 AM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: Bob West]
Bob West Offline


Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 828
Loc: Bishop, CA, USA
A bill (H.R. 4849)that would allow commercial packing permits before a ruling on the HSHA lawsuit, passed the House of Representatives on April 27th, and is awaiting passage by the Senate. California Senators Feinstein and Boxer are working to support passage of the bill in the Senate. Supporters of commercial packing are hopeful the bill will pass in the Senate in time for packing to resume as soon as possible.

Last year, because of the heavy snow pack, the packing and hiking season started late, impacting commerical guiding services. They need a good season to help recover from their losses last year. The rapid melting of this year's light snow pack will ensure an early start to hiking and packing.

Top
#24124 - 05/18/12 11:16 AM Re: HSHA Lawsuit [Re: Bob West]
wagga Offline


Registered: 10/07/09
Posts: 2249
Loc: Humbug Reach (Pop. 3)
Senate passes Sierra horse-packing bill.

From the Fresno Bee.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Thursday approved a painstakingly negotiated bill that keeps commercial horse-and-mule packers operating in Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks.

Following some furious behind-the-scenes action, the Senate joined the House in directing the park service to renew the commercial packing permits for the next several years. The legislation was only introduced on Capitol Hill, in a different form, about three weeks ago.
_________________________
Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII

Top
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >