Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion SEKI Wilderness Stewardship Plan Open for Comment

The Preliminary Draft Alternatives are ready for comment. It's mostly just a matrix of issues and strategies this early on, but it gives an indication of where this is headed.

*** Three of the six alternatives are various levels of decreasing visitor access and increasing restrictions. ***

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=342&projectID=33225&documentID=49956

There are public meetings related to this as well:
http://www.whitneyzone.com/wz/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/27125#Post27125

I'll re-post the announcement here later.


SierraNevada wrote:
> *** Three of the six alternatives are various levels of decreasing visitor access and increasing restrictions. ***


I will definitely be at the Visalia meeting, and plan to make as many suggestions as possible for options to maintain visitor access levels, and even increase it if possible.

Steve,

The more visitors, the more support these parks get. This is a simple truth.

It also supports the outside the park supporting businesses...jobs.

I'm still wading through it. It is kind of a confusing mess. However, a first approximation is that only one of the proposed alternatives truly limits visitor use. As near as I can tell, most of them are some variation on what is currently the status quo.

What bothers me right off (and I'll weigh in with more details as soon as I have some semi-coherent thoughts) is that several of the alternatives propose an equivalency to stock and human use. That is, they allow a maximum number composed of each -- the proportion to be determined by the user. So, say, a maximum of 20 "hearbeats" might be allowed on a trip but it could be 10 stock and 10 people or 19 stock and one person. This is absurd. It seems to say (and I could well be wrong as I gain more understanding) that the ecological impact of a 1,200 lb. metal shod horse is the same as a human and that both impacts are equally acceptable.

In addition, although consideration may be given to an elevation limit to grazing, there seems to be no proposal to protect individual meadows. I'm especially concerned about the iconic Sierra meadows that occupy valley bottoms: Evolution, McClure, Colby, Little Pete, Grouse, Castle Dome etc. Not a single one of these is permanently closed to grazing by stock. These are the types of meadow that take the major impacts from grazing.

I'm going to propose that each alternative have wording that recognizes the aesthetic and ecological importance of such meadows and ensures that at least one in every major watershed is permanently closed to grazing. Meadows are magical places and protection from grazing is long overdue for at least some of them. I'll post what I come up with here in the hope that others join me.

It's also important to note that this is ONLY a request to comment on what the alternatives should be, so this is by no means final. It offers a general outline of proposed alternatives, but everyone should read them and come up with suggestions for better specifics.

George

George, it might not seem like a big change, but half of the alternatives decrease visitor access and increase restrictions. Seems like an agenda to me.

• "Trailhead quotas would be reduced for certain high use trailheads" (Alt4) "Wilderness-wide" (Alt5) and "substantially reduced" (Alt6).

• The NPS would work with USFS to add missing trailheads to quota system (Alt 3-6)

I attended the Visalia "workshop" with wagga this evening. It was primarily a presentation by several Park Service staff members describing the process, with a question/discussion period afterwards.

They have had several earlier workshops and thankfully, the presenter indicated that Alternative 6 got some pretty harsh reviews. Alternative 6 is titled:

I was able to point out that the title is pretty much an oxymoron: "unconstrained ...experience" while significantly restricting access. I asked, "Does it make sense to give some sort of ideal experience for a few while completely blocking access to so many others?"

They asked me to be sure and submit my comments on that topic. I sure hope many people will!


The signage at the junction of the JMT and the Mt Whitney Trail was mentioned, and we were assured that it was already being addressed.


The topic of usage of hi-tech devices in the wilderness was addressed, and the presenter had a surprisingly negative view of cell phones and Spot units. He seemed offended that people might use cell phones in the backcountry, but more was said about hikers carrying ipods with small speakers mounted so everyone around them could hear what they were playing. Thankfully it was pointed out that that sort of thing is a citable violation.

After the meeting, I asked the presenter privately more about his disdain for Spot and phones. It was curious that he thought a hand held gps/map device was ok, but any sort of communications or music device was not. His opinion was that people couldn't get the full wilderness experience if they were "connected" to civilization. I am sure all (or even most of) the staff don't share his feelings, but I still found it interesting, especially in light of the current SAR operations.

Thanks, Steve and Wagga for attending and keeping us posted on this critical planning issue that will affect everyone using the SEKI wilderness.

OK. It's taken me awhile, but here's my Summary comments on the Sequoia Kings Wilderness Stewardship Plan Draft Alternatives. Note that the documents released are only to comment on whether these Alternatives are the ones that should be adopted. The next phase is to write the Alternatives in final form, then release those for comment.

Alas, the Draft is kind of a mess. I had trouble understanding the tables as presented, though think I got the general idea. It's important, though, for wilderness users to read and comment on this. The last plan was written in 1986 (!!!) and not revised until now. So, it's quite likely that this Plan will be the guiding document for the next 30 years. It will affect how you can visit the backcountry for all of that time. It's a pain, but please read it and comment on what you think is important. Comments have to be in by November 19th, so take a little time to read it and send in your thoughts.

I'll copy my longer comments in the next post but, briefly, I'm bothered by three things:

1) The zone system proposed.
2) No specific protection plan for iconic Sierran meadows (e.g. McClure, Colby, Grouse, Upper Basin, Castle Dome etc).
3) Grazing regulated, partially, by zones rather than the ecological and aesthetic limits and needs of canyon ecosystems.

g.

Here's my draft comments on their draft... . I'll have more detail later. This is just the Summary/Abstract of what I'm putting together.

************************
In spite of several readings of the Draft Alternative Tables on the Sequoia Kings Wilderness Stewardship Plan, I'm not sure I fully understand many of the proposed alternatives. I'm hopeful the final Alternatives are more clearly presented. In addition, the current headers seem perhaps too provocative for Alternatives 4, 5 and 6. The phrase "decreasing visitor access and increasing restrictions” and the increasingly draconian sounding alternatives from there is dependent on actual numbers for future implementation – numbers that are not presented yet. The reality is, when compared to current use patterns, the actual effects may not be all that significant. To present the Alternatives as you now have them may skew people's perceptions of their true impact and so affect their understanding and comments.

Summary
I have three major criticisms of the Draft Alternatives as written. I will summarize here and provide details further on.

1. Organizing and potentially limiting wilderness visitation and permitting by zones is both practically unworkable and violates the basic spirit of wilderness travel. It marks a major departure for both the practical side of managing wilderness use as well as a major change in how visitors might relate to wilderness. A person should, within reason, be able to travel wherever they want and stay as long as they like. This is the long-established Freedom of the Hills that is at the core of the wilderness experience. Nothing in current or projected future use patterns suggest any need to change this.

Zones are useful for visualizing use patterns and modeling dispersal from trailheads, but actual implementation of permit quotas and camping restrictions should continue to be based on controlling the daily number of people and stock allowed to leave a trailhead each day. Limits based on daily limits of visitors leaving from the trailheads and how they disperse through wilderness has worked quite well.

The models may need to be redone, but it is the only system that is both workable where permits are issued and where later enforced by rangers. There can, of course, be mitigations within an area—the number of nights at a lake, for instance, could be limited. The guiding philosophy, though, should be that once a person gets a permit, that person can go almost wherever they want as their spirit inspires them.

2. While establishing an elevation limit for grazing is an alternative worth considering, it does not guarantee full protection for iconic Sierran meadow should grazing be closed in elevations above these meadows. It is imperative that Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 contain wording that at least one or more meadows will be completely closed to grazing in each canyon ecosystem. Such permanent closure would be determined based on the meadow's ecological, esthetic and social importance to that canyon ecosystem.

Merely limiting grazing of meadow is not sufficient. To allow visitors a full range of a true wilderness experience when travelling in wilderness, they absolutely must have the opportunity to experience large meadows absent ANY grazing by stock. In addition, the park service must carry out its mandate under the wilderness act to afford complete protection to at least some meadows, allowing them to reach their full ecological potential that has been denied by over a century of stock grazing.

3. The zones proposed are, apparently, created relative to their current use levels – a factor that is a result of their geography (close to a trailhead) and social variables of visitation (popular trail corridor). Tables 4 and 6 say that stock numbers and grazing will be managed to, among other reasons, protect resources – an ecological constraint. The Alternatives for those tables, though, seem to propose stock use levels based on the socially-defined zones rather than the ecological effects of grazing on specific areas – meadows and watersheds. The WSP cannot use a socially derived zonal plan to regulate what the document clearly says should be based on resource protection.

For instance, while several of the Alternatives propose a possible elevational limit to grazing, that is only a small part of the resource protection variables that must be considered as direct result of stock grazing. They are not directly a function of how the zones are derived, but of much more local ecological considerations.

Grazing, then, must be managed independent of these zones. That does not mean that stock users need be regulated much differently in their access by zone, only that the animals supporting their trip cannot graze more or less based on those zones.

*********************
Specifics to come.

Thanks,

George

First in a series of three. Note this is just a first thoughts draft. Comments, thoughts & corrections sought and welcome!

****************
Zones
I understand that this document is, necessarily, general in presentation. As such, there are no details on how a zonal system would be used to regulate use. Nonetheless, I don't see how it can realistically be enforced or, philosophically, implemented within the spirit of the Wilderness Act.

Practical Considerations
If I'm reading this correctly, a person getting a permit would be limited as to where they could go based on where they want to go. This is a radical change from the current system where, once a permit has been issued -- no matter the route -- a person can go wherever they want. People getting permits might have a general idea of their route and be able to name some of the specific places on that route. The permit issuer, then, would have to decide what zones of travel the person goes through and grant or deny a permit based on that. In addition, for permitting purposes, will the zones be as shown by the map, or more fine-tuned like the Travel Zones that currently exist for the parks. So would travel limits be based on the former (larger) zones or the latter? If, say, zone D has reached it maximum, does that mean that a person wanting to enter the Ionian basin where, maybe, no one has gone to, can't go there because the overall zone is full?

Whether the broader zones as mapped by the Draft or the existing Travel Zones, implementation means that separate daily tallies have to be made of travel destinations and the permit issuer has to be aware of those tallies AND know the place names of the traveler. The the permit issuer must locate those zones to be able to determine if the zone is full or not. This is totally unworkable. There is no way a USFS permit issuer in Lone Pine or Bishop, for instance, is going to know the location of Chasm Lake or Lake 10,212 then be able to tell a person it's full, then take the time while the visitor tries to come up with alternative routes that are not full. In my experience, permit issuers now almost universally only list the first three or four nightly camp destinations. To do more requires greater knowledge and time. Both almost impossible given the size of their area of responsibility and the length of lines on an August day.

I also can't imagine how the zone system is going to be effectively enforced once the visitor is travelling in the backcountry. A ranger is going to have to be familiar with what locations are in what zones and carefully check the permit to see if the visitor is allowed at a particular place. The named place (or zone) on a permit may not at all match where that person is but enforcement will depend on matching their location to the zone allowed on the permit. Another level of especially intrusive enforcement is placed on both the visitor and the ranger to the benefit of no one but to the detriment of the spirit of wilderness.

Philosophical Considerations
Wilderness is about freedom. Any management system that limits that freedom is inherently antithetical to the very spirit of wilderness. Absent obvious and quantifiable ecological or social impacts from overuse, there is no need to micro-manage wilderness travel as proposed by the zone plan introduced with these alternatives. I have been a backcountry ranger for over 40 years and can authoritatively say that impacts are not even close to those where such micro-management is necessary.

At the height of wilderness visitation in the late 60s and through the 70s, impacts were far greater than they have been since. Even then, those impacts were localized and did not require anything other than the daily trailhead maximums that were established by the mid-70s. Those maximums were, to a certain extent, based on dispersal patterns. If 50 hikers left the trailhead, 30 of them would go to, say, the closest lake, 10 would continue on a loop, and maybe 10 would disperse to more isolated cross-country areas. Use, then, could be regulated by the total numbers allowed per day. If impacts increased in, say, the close-in lake, the trailhead quota could be – and often was – reduced to reduce overall impacts. Or if it was clearly a localized problem, a camping nights limit could be placed on the specific lake.

In my direct and long-time experience, this management approach continues to work extremely well. A person leaving a trailhead has an infinite number of possibilities to choose from while travelling. A wilderness traveler can see a basin from the trail or on a map and suddenly choose to go there. Such unrestricted possibility is at the core of what wilderness – and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks – must offer backcountry users. People's daily lives are nothing but constraint on their movement: schedules must be met; specific roads must be followed in specific directions and at specific speeds; a myriad of rules govern every aspect of work and even non-wilderness regulation. But when a person puts on a backpack and steps onto a trail, all that changes. There are a few rules, sure, but the can go wherever they want at whatever pace they want. They're not required to be at a certain place at a certain time. They can change where they're going and even how long they're staying if the spirit of wilderness so moves and inspires them.

This must not be tampered with in any way. Absent any compelling reason to change from trailhead quotas, that system should continue to be the primary management tool to regulate use levels. Zone-level management would seem to increase regulation and discourage the realization of immanence, even enlightenment, when travelling in wilderness.

I agree with you, George, that trying to manage numbers in the wilderness by any means other than trailhead quotas would be impossible.

I also like your recommendations to protect meadows by permanently closing some to any grazing. I'll be including that in my comments. In the workshop, I noted they seemed to consider one horse equal to one hiker when tallying numbers in the wilderness. It seems like they should consider that horses have a greater impact, especially when they are allowed to graze, rather than carry in their own feed.

> Any management system that limits that freedom is inherently antithetical to the very spirit of wilderness.

That is truth! I have always maintained that preventing people from the wilderness works completely against the Wilderness Act's phrase, "provide outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation". In most places, it is pretty easy to tell people, if they want solitude, just walk off the trail a hundred yards!

Unfortunately, I think most everyone agrees to some level of quotas. But there are many other ways to ensure solitude can be found. To prevent any damage from heavy use and better manage the wilderness, I wish the plans would rely more on things like hiker education and having more rangers in the backcountry.

I would like to see the quotas raised significantly, and use other tools:
* hiker education -- even require online courses with exams every few years!
* hiker education -- how to find solitude by hiking off trail.
* post no-camping or other rules in specific high-impact spots.
* raise fees to pay for the rangers
* more rangers in the backcountry to ensure less impact in high-impact spots.

These are ideas that could help allow more people to enjoy the wilderness, rather than slamming the door on all but a lucky few.

Steve -- all good comments on your side. I'm not in complete agreement on raising quotas but I think the numbers can be fiddled with to see what you get. There's no question that education of hikers and their adoption of minimum impact makes it possible for more people to be there.

But you're also spot-on opposing equating one horse with one person. I've read those sections several times and am not sure what they mean (being able to substitute a horse for a person to a maximum). It's poorly written. There's no question that it's an absurd notion. This is the so-called "hearbeats" approach to management. Limiting the numbers, no matter whether person or horse, by their absolute number rather than their relative impact. Conservative estimates by ecologists put a horse at 10X the impact of a human. Several others (Derlet) put it at 50X.

In addition, the document clearly says that humans will be regulated primarily by their social impacts and stock by their ecological impacts. So making the two 1:1 makes no sense. AND, 'cause I'm on a roll..., it's the humans who are the ones we want to visit and enjoy wilderness. The horses have no intrinsic right to be there other than how they further the human wilderness experience.

Anyway, hope to post my brilliant section on meadows a little later.

thanks,

g.

OK. Subject to some serious stylistic and logical revisions. Here's meadows:

******************
Protect Specific Iconic Meadows
Manage Grazing According to Ecological and Aesthetic Criteria, Not Zones

Meadows are the heart and soul of the Sierra. Along with granite peaks, the huge meadows that occur along rivers in canyon bottoms are iconic and vital to both the ecology of watersheds and the aesthetic experience of wilderness travelers. With only one exception, in all of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, every major meadow on a popular trail corridor is subject to grazing. A person hiking the John Muir Trail will have only one opportunity in over 100 miles of travel to experience a large meadow free of grazing impacts – Vidette Meadow. This is unacceptable and a glaring failure of the Park Service to truly provide for the enjoyment of visitors and leave park areas in as unimpaired condition as possible.

Managing meadows and watershed-level meadow ecologies cannot be done according to the zones proposed. Those zones are based almost entirely on social criteria – where use has, historically, been concentrated or not. They are not in any way based on the ecological relationships of the requirements and relationships of meadows or the watersheds they are a part of. The draft says that, if allowed, grazing will be "managed to protect ecological functions...”. It appears, though, that such management will be based on, among other criteria, the zones the grazing takes place in. That's a contradiction. Grazing must be entirely managed on ecological and scenic criteria, irrespective of the zone the grazing takes place in or the previous history of grazing in individual meadows or watersheds.

Although the USE of stock is, unquestionably, "a primitive type of recreation appropriate to fulfill the recreational purpose of wilderness...” the stock themselves have absolutely no intrinsic right to graze Sierra meadows. Stock and meadow management has morphed into recognizing stock as a user group equal to people. Stock numbers are looked at independent of the number of people they carry into the wilderness. The essential question when stock is regulated – whether for grazing or party size – is: Is the ecological, aesthetic and social impact of stock justified by the number of people they support on any given trip?

In LeConte Canyon this year, I witnessed a meadow that was made aesthetically offensive for about three weeks following a stay of 6 head for three nights. The grasses were trampled, soil churned up, two new 10' X 3' roll pits eroded through meadow sod, stream banks collapsed by hoofs and the entire area smelling strongly of horse urine and manure. Those 6 animals supported a multi-day trip of only two visitors. Two park visitors essentially wrecked the visitor experience of anyone who wanted to camp at that site and meadow for at least the next three weeks. It was perfectly acceptable under current regulations and meadow management criteria. That is not in any way acceptable and the Draft Alternatives of the WSP must establish clear rules to both mitigate and prohibit such impacts.

Stock can be allowed only to the extent they further wilderness values by allowing human visitors to enjoy wilderness. This must be made clear in the Topic summary and the Alternatives so derived.

Protecting Individual Meadows
The draft alternatives suggest that the primary management tool to completely close meadows to grazing will be by a yet to be determined elevational limit. This is not sufficient to provide for the ecological integrity and aesthetic enjoyment of the iconic Sierran meadows that might be below such limits, should such limits be established. The grazing section of Table 6, Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 must explicitly require that criteria will be established such that an increasing number of the large canyon-bottom meadow per drainage will be completely closed and protected from grazing to preserve and protect their ecological and aesthetic integrity with a long-term goal of rehabilitating them to as pristine a state as possible.

Historically, meadow management has been focused almost entirely on establishing limits for use nights in specific meadows. Establishing those limits have been based on several criteria: long term ecological impacts, e.g. whether the meadow is likely to show changes in species composition over years; short term ecological impacts, e.g. whether an unacceptable amount of biomass (aka grass) is being removed from the meadow such that it can't recover to some arbitrary state that season. No serious consideration is given to either aesthetics or the effects of grazing on any part of meadow ecology other than removal of grass by grazing.

Aesthetics – the sights, sounds and smell of a meadow – are inseparable from the wilderness experience and enjoyment of a meadow. Yet aesthetics and the potential effects of grazing on visitor enjoyment of a meadow play absolutely no part in meadow management and little explicit part in the draft alternatives.

Stock routinely create "roll pits” in fragile meadows. While not optimal or encouraged, these pits are not a violation of any current regulations or policies. Such pits take decades to recover to their vegetated condition, if they do at all. In addition, a party supported by even a small group of stock (6 or fewer) will leave the immediate area around their camp an incredibly unpleasant experience for weeks after their visit. Manure and urine in and around camps make them smell like a pasture; the grasses for hundreds of yards a camp is trampled, pawed and chewed up; stream banks near where stock go to water are sheared off; and stock often urinates and defecates directly into and near open water. Regulations are in place – and strictly enforced – stopping human visitors from causing even 1/100 of these types of impacts, yet it is perfectly within regulations for stock to do it.

The draft alternatives say that grazing and party size of stock will be managed to protect resources. Yet it allows a 1:1 exchange of people and stock to make up a maximum on total party size. Although a maximum of each (people and stock) is set and can't be exceeded, the implication is that subtracting one person can be substituted by an animal, which is an absurd proposition. An animal has, at minimum, ten times the ecological impact of a human and some estimates put that impact at 50 times. Nowhere is there a hint on how these relative numbers are arrived at or a clear set of criteria for changing those numbers based on actual ecological and aesthetic benchmarks.

Two standards, then, must be explicitly stated throughout the final alternatives:

1. Independent of where a possible elevational limit is set for grazing, specific iconic meadows will be chosen for their ecological and aesthetic values and closed permanently to grazing. For Alternative 3, this could be one meadow per canyon; for Alternative 4 this could be 2 meadows; and 3 for Alternative 5. Camping with stock would still be allowed in designated stock camps (to preserve the aesthetic integrity of both camps and meadow) but they'd have to bring their own feed.

2. It is not enough to merely list "scenic” as a quality to determine a management criteria. Aesthetic considerations must be integral – and equal to biomass removal – in how meadows are evaluated for stock use nights. Such an evaluation will establish criteria to look at the meadow, the stream and surrounding campsites. Criteria will include how an area looks – how close its status is to one undisturbed by stock or human use; how it smells; and how it sounds – are the grasses tall enough such that one can hear the susurration as they are moved by the breeze? The latter won't happen if the grasses are trampled or eaten by stock.

Additional ecological considerations beyond mere biomass removal must be established and made in both the alternatives and, eventually, accompanying supporting narrative. Short term impairment should be integral to a true evaluation of a meadow. It is not enough if, after several stock parties have grazed a meadow that recovery the following season is sufficient to find no impairment to the ecology of a meadow. A meadow's total ecological integrity much be considered – what is the effect of grazing on small mammals such as marmots and belding's ground squirrel; what are the potential effects on nesting habitat of birds, both aquatic and those on dry ground; what are the effects of manure on meadows and the potential runoff of pathogens, nitrates, phosphorous etc. into streams. Not a single one of these criteria currently guides stock use numbers. If "meadow management” is truly to be about meadows, it then has to be more than "grazing management” which is all it currently is.

As if there isn't enough to read to understand stock issues...

Here are the stock use approaches in other National Parks. A number of them seem to limit the stock impacts by disallowing free herding and by requiring the use of feed to replace grazing. After that are some of the documents referenced in the comment documents.


**** Stock Use Rules in a Number of National Parks
Glacier NP
http://www.nps.gov/glac/planyourvisit/privatestockuse.htm

Point Reyes NS
http://www.nps.gov/pore/planyourvisit/horse.htm

Rocky Mountain NP
http://www.nps.gov/romo/planyourvisit/stock_site.htm

SEKI
http://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/stockuse.htm

Yellowstone NP
http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/upload/YELL392_horsepacking.pdf

Yosemire
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/stock.htm

****
Documents referenced directly or indirectly in the Preliminary Draft Alternatives Public Review Materials
****

**** 1986 Stock Plan
1986 SEKI Stock Use and Meadow Management Plan
1986StockUsePlan.pdf

**** SEKI 2011 Stock Usage Report
SEKI_2011StockUseReport_Frenzel_20120209-2.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/upload/SEKI_2011StockUseReport_Frenzel_20120209-2.pdf

**** SEKI 2012 Regulations
2012-Kings-Stock-Use-Grazing-Restrictions-2.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/upload/2012-Kings-Stock-Use-Grazing-Restrictions-2.pdf

2012-Sequoia-Stock-Use-Grazing-Restrictions-2.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/upload/2012-Sequoia-Stock-Use-Grazing-Restrictions-2.pdf

2012-Stock-Users-Guide-FINAL-2.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/upload/2012-Stock-Users-Guide-FINAL-2.pdf

Dale B. Dalrymple

Yosemite has instituted a destination-specific allocation system that could be expanded and applied to great advantage. Instead of quotas being based solely on the trailhead, some permits are allocated based on first night destinations, notably Little Yosemite Valley. Certain permit holders for Happy Isles and Glacier Point THs may stay at LYV and others may not. This allows more JMT hikers at HI than might otherwise be the case. It applies in other places as well: Rae Lakes Loop permits have separate quotas for clockwise and counter-clockwise departures from Roads End.

This could be used to great advantage to clear bottlenecks for through-hikers: why should a JMT throughhiker, doing maybe 20 miles a day, and clearing Yosemite Valley immediately, be subject to the same restrictive quota as someone spending a couple of nights in Little Yosemite Valley?

Similarly, at the other end, it is extremely difficult to secure a permit for the classic South to North throughhike of the JMT due the demand of overnighters spending two or more days on the MWMT. But the through hiker is typically out of the Whitney Zone in a day, making half or less of the impact on the MWMT as the summiter in the meantime. The result is that the MWMT is packed, and the JMT is probably underused, certainly by comparison.

Paradoxically, though that's not the biggest the problem with the argument for primary reliance on TH quotas: as George points out, the farther one goes into the backcountry, generally the less the TH has any correlation with the backpacker's destination, or where she spends time in the back country. Regulating the TH has from little to no correlation to regulating the backcountry use after the first fork in the trail. The most popular THs, such as HI and WP, as popular as they are for the classic log hikes they begin, are many more times as popular for the short hikes in their immediate cininity: Half Dome, Whitney, LYV etc. The TH system, however, heavily favors the intensive use by the short-hikers over the much lower impacts of the long distance traveller. That ain't right


I would be very happy to accept certain restrictions against camping at any of the heavily used sites: LYV, Tuolomne, Trail Camp, etc, or even limited time on the heavily used trail sections, in return for surer access to the full, classic routes.

> I would be very happy to accept certain restrictions against camping at any of the heavily used sites: LYV, Tuolomne, Trail Camp, etc, or even limited time on the heavily used trail sections, in return for surer access to the full, classic routes.

Definitely a good point, saltydog.

This brings to mind a rule in Yosemite: No camping within 6 miles of any trail head from Tuolumne Meadows. It really screws up my idea of taking my wife and daughter in on a short backpack -- most likely off trail, where I could introduce my daughter to the fun of backpacking. Neither one is capable of a 6-mile hike with a backpack.

There are definitely places we could go in the vicinity of Tuolumne Meadows where we could find an isolated spot, off any meadow growth, in a forested area where our impact would miniscule. We would NOT build a fire, not leave the area obviously used, and leave NO trace. But we can not get a permit.

If I or anyone else wants to do such a trip, they become "shadow", or "secret" campers. Although I have not done this near Tuolumne Meadows, I have in other locations in Yosemite.

I am not sure how a national park Wilderness Plan could accommodate these actions without people overrunning the system, but I sure wish there were a way.

No, actually. That's exactly what the models applied to TH quotas do (or, ok, are supposed to do). It's like any dispersal model: disease, ants, whatever. You know there will likely be a statistically predictable dispersal of a population from point x. They actually seem to work pretty well, though maybe I'm just used to and accepting of the results. The quotas now are based on modeling from the mid 70s, so there's a strong argument they should be done again.

EDIT: hmmm. Let me expand on that a little more. I wouldn't agree that after the first fork, that there's little or no correlation, but that the numbers reduce so much that the impact (both social and ecological) is much less important. However, there are nexus (ok. What's the plural of nexus??) -- places where trails come together that tend to be destinations like Crabtree area -- that receive use from so many trailhead inputs (JMT from Happy Isles; Onion Valley; Rock Creek; Lodgepole on HST) that they are not accurately predicted or controlled by trailhead quotas. Or, at least, not from the original models.

Edit continued: But the other thing is that the models were done in the 70s -- at the absolute peak of visitor use in the Sierra. It decreased dramatically by the 90s and, I think, is now relatively stable. Which is to say that visitation isn't a huge problem in terms of impact. This is beginning to worry be about these Alternatives. That they are addressing a problem that is really not there by either current or future projections.

And restricting camping close in to a trailhead -- even assigning campsites -- is commonly done.

So the answer to why should a JMT through hiker be subject to the same quota as a destination hiker (e.g. to LYV). It's because they're all estimated into the dispersal from point x. LYV, for instance, has a maximum carrying capacity per night. Everyone who leaves the trailhead is part of that, even though some continue on either on Day 1 or on Day 2.

The Travel Zones used by both Yosemite & Sequoia Kings were begun to track use by zones and, I think, ground truth the models. But I don't think they've been compiled in years (could be wrong on that, though...). The problem I have with the zones apparently proposed by the WSP is they're huge. A zone D would encompass cross country areas in both parks. It's not clear that if the zone is "full" from one concentrated area of use, does that then deny permits to those going into the same zone elsewhere? If zones are to be used (and I don't think they should) then the existing travel zones would be the best choice as more representative of cohesive ecological units.

And, as noted, I'm also hugely bothered by controlling where people can camp (with the possible exception of high use areas close to trailheads).


g.

George, third paragraph:
> This is beginning to worry be about these Alternatives.
Do you mean "worry me"?

George wrote:
> So the answer to why should a JMT through hiker be subject to the same quota as a destination hiker (e.g. to LYV). It's because they're all estimated into the dispersal from point x. LYV, for instance, has a maximum carrying capacity per night. Everyone who leaves the trailhead is part of that, even though some continue on either on Day 1 or on Day 2.

Well, if I wanted to get a permit, and the normal permits available for an impacted trail head, like the Happy Isles/ Little Y.V. trail were full, I would happily accept a permit that dictated:
  1) No camping in ANY impacted area (with restricted spots identified on the permit).
  2) Must camp Off trail at least 30 yards or out of sight of 90% of the trail.
  3) No fires.
  4) etc.

It certainly would be nice to have such a "restricted permit" available. It would challenge the hiker to find a true "wilderness" spot to camp. It would have only a minor impact on the wilderness experience of those camping in the traditional (high impact) spots.

Back in 2000, when I led a SC National Outing down the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne, crews were demolishing established campsites, fire rings, etc. Rangers wanted us to camp a few hundred feet off the trail and be largely invisible. Same NP.