SQUEAKS
05-27-2006, 12:35 PM
Here is what I recieived from the HSHA (High Sierra Hikers Association)after I sent them this E-mail- regarding riding horses on public lands.
In a message dated 5/25/2006 7:34:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, VilcomON writes:
I am just wondering what are your reasons for opposing horseback riders ? Since I own horses and ride all the time I will not support your group or any legislation that is against the use of horses on public lands. I cannot understand your position and I would like some answers.
Bob Evans
Editor & Publisher
Vilcom International Outdoor News & Horse Report
PO Drawer 70
Greenville, Florida 31331
850-948-6496
Owner/Operator
Emerald Acres Paso Fino Ranch
850-948-6498
THEIR RESPONSE>----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Bob-
Thanks for your inquiry regarding our position on the Right-to-Ride Bill. We've received several emails of late that make it clear that someone is spreading misinformation about the HSHA and why it is that we oppose this bill.
First, let me say that we respect your opinions, your desire to ride, and your love of wilderness. The High Sierra Hikers Association has never advocated eliminating stock use, despite what some commercial outfitters would like you to believe. We in fact support continued stock use of wilderness; some of our members are regular stock users. We support the Wilderness Act's goal of preserving primitive skills, and we have strongly opposed the agencies' use of helicopters for routine maintenance when they should be using stock. We also support use of stock to provide access to people with disabilities.
What HSHA is against is abuse and exploitation of our public lands for private gain. Here in California's Sierra Nevada, the commercial horse/mule packing outfits have been allowed to expand with few controls, while hikers are routinely turned away by strict quota systems. (I myself have been truned away three times in the last two years; ironically, in all three instances, I would have been allowed on the trail had I been willing to pay a packer for a dunnage trip, despite the fact that the quota was filled for the day!). Many trails have been pounded into deep, fine dust by commercial outfits who are out to make more bucks by bringing excessive numbers of animals carrying hundreds of pounds of unneeded luxury items---to the point that a hike is difficult to enjoy. Meadows have been overgrazed, packers have built illegal trails without permission, and go wherever they please regardless of the gullies they create. They break every rule in the book: illegal fires, excessively large groups, illegal grazing in closed areas, illegal construction of trails, etc. The agencies do little or nothing for fear of the political clout of the commercial outfits. Rangers have been told not to issue citations to the commercial packers. I could go on-and-on, but will spare you a laundry list of all the crimes.
In the mid-1990s, we started to take a stand. After years of raising our concerns but being ignored by the agencies, we filed a lawsuit. The courts have weighed the evidence, and ordered the Forest Service and Park Service to do a better job here in the Sierra. We hope they will.
Because we have gotten involved, and have demanded that the agencies adopt reasonable limits and controls on the commercial outfits, they feel threatened. One response is the Right-to-Ride bill. It was conceived by commercial packers here in California in hopes of grand-fathering their abuses of our public lands. It was written by a lawyer for the commercial outfits. It says that they can continue to operate anywhere that they have operated in the past, unless the government conducts a full NEPA process, which means a time-consuming and very expensive full "environmental impact statement."
We feel that the bill is unnecessary, poorly written, and would result in a huge waste of taxpayers' money. It is unnecessary because stock users already have access to public lands unless the agencies have specific reasons for restricting their use. The bill is poorly written (and a waste of taxpayers' money) in that it contains extremely vague language which could be interpreted to require a full EIS any time an agency needed to adopt any new restriction on stock use to protect natural resources.
The only axe we have to grind is against exploitation and abuse of the High Sierra wilderness. We have supported reasonable science-based restrictions on all users, including hikers. We have also fought against external threats like low-flying military jets. We have fought to keep bikes and motorized equipment out of wilderness (though we are fine with sharing non-wilderness trails with mountain bikers...I myself own and use a ountain bike). We have fought to prevent inappropriate use of helicopters for trail maintenance when stock should be used instead.
In sum, we consider the Right-to-Ride bill to be unnecessary "special-interest" legislation. No group should have its own law saying that its own uses must be continued unless a time-consuming and expensive EIS is prepared. The agencies should have discretion to limit uses that are harming public lands, and they need the ability to respond relatively quickly to issues such as overgrazing and overcrowding.
We have nothing at all against responsible private stock groups such as the Backcountry Horsemen of California, and feel that we have more in common than not. We personally have some great friends in the Backcountry Horsemen...and we tell everyone in the HSHA that it's important to stick to the issues and not lump all stock users in with the commercial outfits who care more about making money than taking care with the land. Private stock users in the Sierra generally support smaller group size limits, "start dates" for grazing, staying on designated trails, and other measures to protect the land, but the agencies (so far) listen only to the commercial outfits, who have opposed every proposed measure to minimize their impacts.
The High Sierra Hikers has advocated a modest network of "hiker only" trails in the Sierra. Some routes were never designed or constructed to withstand stock use. We have suggested a specific list of trails --- less than 20% of the existing trails --- that should be closed to stock. Most of those are constructed on extremely steep grades and are unsafe for stock anyway. But the agencies refuse to even consider this, and it is unfortunate that some stock users feel threatened by it. If hikers who so choose had a few primitive routes to escape the manure, urine and dust of heavily used stock trails, much of the controversy would evaporate.
Unfortunately, the commercial packers have felt compelled to mislead stock users about the true goals of the High Sierra Hikers Association. It is more convenient for them to portray us as "anti-stock", when in fact we are merely trying to preserve an enduring wilderness resource for both hikers and stock users alike. Please check out these two essays at our website, to help you better understand our organization:
http://www.highsierrahikers.org/essay_clear.html
http://www.highsierrahikers.org/essay_tosue.html
In sum, we have nothing against responsible stock users, or stock use on trails that are appropriately designed and constructed to withstand the impacts of stock animals. The Right-to-Ride bill just goes way too far. Responsible stock users should actively oppose it, and urge the irresponsible commercial outfits --- who are giving stock users a bad name --- to shape up.
I hope this helps you understand our advocacy a little better.
Happy trails,
Brian
HSHA volunteer
In a message dated 5/25/2006 7:34:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, VilcomON writes:
I am just wondering what are your reasons for opposing horseback riders ? Since I own horses and ride all the time I will not support your group or any legislation that is against the use of horses on public lands. I cannot understand your position and I would like some answers.
Bob Evans
Editor & Publisher
Vilcom International Outdoor News & Horse Report
PO Drawer 70
Greenville, Florida 31331
850-948-6496
Owner/Operator
Emerald Acres Paso Fino Ranch
850-948-6498
THEIR RESPONSE>----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Bob-
Thanks for your inquiry regarding our position on the Right-to-Ride Bill. We've received several emails of late that make it clear that someone is spreading misinformation about the HSHA and why it is that we oppose this bill.
First, let me say that we respect your opinions, your desire to ride, and your love of wilderness. The High Sierra Hikers Association has never advocated eliminating stock use, despite what some commercial outfitters would like you to believe. We in fact support continued stock use of wilderness; some of our members are regular stock users. We support the Wilderness Act's goal of preserving primitive skills, and we have strongly opposed the agencies' use of helicopters for routine maintenance when they should be using stock. We also support use of stock to provide access to people with disabilities.
What HSHA is against is abuse and exploitation of our public lands for private gain. Here in California's Sierra Nevada, the commercial horse/mule packing outfits have been allowed to expand with few controls, while hikers are routinely turned away by strict quota systems. (I myself have been truned away three times in the last two years; ironically, in all three instances, I would have been allowed on the trail had I been willing to pay a packer for a dunnage trip, despite the fact that the quota was filled for the day!). Many trails have been pounded into deep, fine dust by commercial outfits who are out to make more bucks by bringing excessive numbers of animals carrying hundreds of pounds of unneeded luxury items---to the point that a hike is difficult to enjoy. Meadows have been overgrazed, packers have built illegal trails without permission, and go wherever they please regardless of the gullies they create. They break every rule in the book: illegal fires, excessively large groups, illegal grazing in closed areas, illegal construction of trails, etc. The agencies do little or nothing for fear of the political clout of the commercial outfits. Rangers have been told not to issue citations to the commercial packers. I could go on-and-on, but will spare you a laundry list of all the crimes.
In the mid-1990s, we started to take a stand. After years of raising our concerns but being ignored by the agencies, we filed a lawsuit. The courts have weighed the evidence, and ordered the Forest Service and Park Service to do a better job here in the Sierra. We hope they will.
Because we have gotten involved, and have demanded that the agencies adopt reasonable limits and controls on the commercial outfits, they feel threatened. One response is the Right-to-Ride bill. It was conceived by commercial packers here in California in hopes of grand-fathering their abuses of our public lands. It was written by a lawyer for the commercial outfits. It says that they can continue to operate anywhere that they have operated in the past, unless the government conducts a full NEPA process, which means a time-consuming and very expensive full "environmental impact statement."
We feel that the bill is unnecessary, poorly written, and would result in a huge waste of taxpayers' money. It is unnecessary because stock users already have access to public lands unless the agencies have specific reasons for restricting their use. The bill is poorly written (and a waste of taxpayers' money) in that it contains extremely vague language which could be interpreted to require a full EIS any time an agency needed to adopt any new restriction on stock use to protect natural resources.
The only axe we have to grind is against exploitation and abuse of the High Sierra wilderness. We have supported reasonable science-based restrictions on all users, including hikers. We have also fought against external threats like low-flying military jets. We have fought to keep bikes and motorized equipment out of wilderness (though we are fine with sharing non-wilderness trails with mountain bikers...I myself own and use a ountain bike). We have fought to prevent inappropriate use of helicopters for trail maintenance when stock should be used instead.
In sum, we consider the Right-to-Ride bill to be unnecessary "special-interest" legislation. No group should have its own law saying that its own uses must be continued unless a time-consuming and expensive EIS is prepared. The agencies should have discretion to limit uses that are harming public lands, and they need the ability to respond relatively quickly to issues such as overgrazing and overcrowding.
We have nothing at all against responsible private stock groups such as the Backcountry Horsemen of California, and feel that we have more in common than not. We personally have some great friends in the Backcountry Horsemen...and we tell everyone in the HSHA that it's important to stick to the issues and not lump all stock users in with the commercial outfits who care more about making money than taking care with the land. Private stock users in the Sierra generally support smaller group size limits, "start dates" for grazing, staying on designated trails, and other measures to protect the land, but the agencies (so far) listen only to the commercial outfits, who have opposed every proposed measure to minimize their impacts.
The High Sierra Hikers has advocated a modest network of "hiker only" trails in the Sierra. Some routes were never designed or constructed to withstand stock use. We have suggested a specific list of trails --- less than 20% of the existing trails --- that should be closed to stock. Most of those are constructed on extremely steep grades and are unsafe for stock anyway. But the agencies refuse to even consider this, and it is unfortunate that some stock users feel threatened by it. If hikers who so choose had a few primitive routes to escape the manure, urine and dust of heavily used stock trails, much of the controversy would evaporate.
Unfortunately, the commercial packers have felt compelled to mislead stock users about the true goals of the High Sierra Hikers Association. It is more convenient for them to portray us as "anti-stock", when in fact we are merely trying to preserve an enduring wilderness resource for both hikers and stock users alike. Please check out these two essays at our website, to help you better understand our organization:
http://www.highsierrahikers.org/essay_clear.html
http://www.highsierrahikers.org/essay_tosue.html
In sum, we have nothing against responsible stock users, or stock use on trails that are appropriately designed and constructed to withstand the impacts of stock animals. The Right-to-Ride bill just goes way too far. Responsible stock users should actively oppose it, and urge the irresponsible commercial outfits --- who are giving stock users a bad name --- to shape up.
I hope this helps you understand our advocacy a little better.
Happy trails,
Brian
HSHA volunteer