Discussion - Do horses belong in Wilderness Areas?

[CarolU]

I am sure I am not alone in having received several e-mails recently about closing some wilderness areas in Colorado to livestock, which includes horses. The e-mail urges me to write my Congressmen about this closure and lobby against it. But, I'm not sure I should.

Wilderness should be just that - as natural as we can leave it for future generations - including both humans and non-humans. Know that we already have lost almost all of what is 'wild' in this world. There probably is no area on earth with no impact from mankind, and only a small percentage with minimal impact. Wilderness designation is to protect those areas.

When livestock are allowed to graze in wilderness areas they destroy creeks and lakes where they water. Cows pull delicate grasses up by their roots, killing them. They don't bite like other animals. Ranchers lobby to keep natural predators (wolves, grissly bears) out of wilderness areas that may kill livestock, and against natural pray animals like elk and moose, that compete with cattle and sheep for forage.

So do horses belong there? They are "livestock" by all current definitions. While many backcountry horsemen are responsible and feed only seed-free feeds and clean up manure from trails and camps, just as many don't. We probably wouldn't even be facing this question if all horsemen were responsible. Sadly, they aren't, and it only takes a few to ruin it for all.

The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres of land
Only 106 million is Wilderness (60 million is located in Alaska)
That is 4.6% of the U.S.

Is it really a huge hardship to save something of our natural world for your children and grandchildren, for wolves and bear to live normally, for elk and moose to graze?

Your thoughts, please

[Heidi]

Let the wild ones have their places. We have certainly taken enough from them.

[reuben T]

I have only visited the west a few times, so don't know the details, what I have seen written about it from the horsemans viewpoint makes it sound like the horse travel limitations being proposed are unreasonable and perpetrated by anti horse hikers. What I've seen of the western mountains, and hiked of them, makes me think horse travel is the only practical way to get around. Restrictions are reasonable where actual overuse is happening, but for huge areas to be restricted to hiking only just because it's designated wilderness, I don't see as reasonable. In the east as far as I've seen, all land designated wilderness is restricted to only hikers, no riding or pack stock. But the areas are very small compared to the wilderness lands of the west and Alaska. Most of the public lands of the east are national forest, and land use policy is fairly liberal. The public lands of the west are so huge in comparason, that to restrict all wilderness designated areas to no horses or pack stock seems totally unreasonable.
It would be a better policy to do what the eastern parklands do, (like great smoky mtns park) and have a trail system with some trails designated hikers only and some for shared use.
I'm aquainted with one anti horse hiker, he said he's afraid of horses and dosn't like them, he told me the only time he tried to ride a horse some friend of his had he got bucked off. Therefor he dosn't want horses on the trails he's going to be hiking.

[reuben T]

I have only visited the west a few times, so don't know the details, what I have seen written about it from the horsemans viewpoint makes it sound like the horse travel limitations being proposed are unreasonable and perpetrated by anti horse hikers. What I've seen of the western mountains, and hiked of them, makes me think horse travel is the only practical way to get around. Restrictions are reasonable where actual overuse is happening, but for huge areas to be restricted to hiking only just because it's designated wilderness, I don't see as reasonable. In the east as far as I've seen, all land designated wilderness is restricted to only hikers, no riding or pack stock. But the areas are very small compared to the wilderness lands of the west and Alaska. Most of the public lands of the east are national forest, and land use policy is fairly liberal. The public lands of the west are so huge in comparason, that to restrict all wilderness designated areas to no horses or pack stock seems totally unreasonable.
It would be a better policy to do what the eastern parklands do, (like great smoky mtns park) and have a trail system with some trails designated hikers only and some for shared use.
I'm aquainted with one anti horse hiker, he said he's afraid of horses and dosn't like them, he told me the only time he tried to ride a horse some friend of his had he got bucked off. Therefor he dosn't want horses on the trails he's going to be hiking.

[Heidi]

I think I'd like to amend...
If they want it wilderness only, I'd say NO ONE goes in. Period.
If hikers are allowed, I think horseback should also be allowed. Not everyone can hike everywhere and horses allow access for those people who can't hike.
However the grazing of herds of livestock (cattle/horses) should not be allowed. That land needs its resources to be for the use of the wild ones.

[Carol Nelson]

Of course!!! My feeling is this country was built on the back of a horse...what better way to see the wilderness than by horseback? Keep the CARS out if you need to preserve the wildness. And the bicyclists!!! I was shocked the last time I did some hiking in Colorado...which was some years ago...perhaps ten...
I and my husband had hiked miles up the side of a mountain to see the spectacular view...and nearly were run over numerous times by these bikers in their spandex tights going top speed or near top speed on their bikes, rounding corners without so much as a "hey, there!" to let us know they were coming. I found that very dangerous to say nothing of being very rude and obnoxious! :mad:
I see no harm in horses being allowed in the wilderness if they are controlled and kept where they belong.

[Mellifluous]

One thing to keep in mind is how the wilderness trails are maintained. The Forest Services uses pack strings to haul in the necessary equipment to do the work that is needed. I think if hikers are allowed in, horses should be too.

You also have to consider the Eastern wilderness areas. If something like this goes through for the more remote western wilderness areas, it will also go for the east. Eastern forests and wilderness areas are VERY different for those out west. Most of the parcels are smaller and there are dense populations and roads everywhere. I know that the wilderness areas in GA do not actually meet the "criteria" for wilderness because of roads being so close and sometimes going through them. Many eastern forests are considered urban forests because of their proximity to major cities. This means that these wilderness areas supply an important source of primitive recreation for many people. It is important that people be able to visit and enjoy these places so they can understand why we are trying to preserve/conserve them. This is especially true for future generations.

There are areas of the Cohutta wilderness in GA that are open to horses, the areas that are more sensitive or have unsuitable to horses are not open to horses. It is kind of common sense. I think a whole lot of the Forest Service and other Land Management Agencies have issues with horses mainly because of resource damage. The resource damage stems from the fact that they have created or in some case adopted trails that are not suitable for equestrian use. They are poorly designed and constructed and many times are on fall lines. Horses are actually low impact animals. Of course, the yahoos that ride on wet trails are not doing much to help our cause. :roll:

In the end, my honest feeling about all of this is that Land Management Agencies are increasingly worried about the bottom line. They have been directed to run themselves like a private corporation and many times this is in conflict with their original mission statement. I think in this case, it would be easier and cheaper for them to winnow out wilderness users so that they no longer have to worry about money for maintainence and such. Another important thing to remember is that with the Forest Service, recreation is a BAD word. The two things that they hate the most are the public and recreation.

Ok, off my rant.

[CarolU]

Maybe I should clarify for those who aren't aware of the differences in public lands. There are two Federal agencies who manage public lands, the National Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Most states also manage state parks. Public land is already divided into different uses, some with roads for total access, some with limited access to bicycles, ATVs, etc.,

But Wilderness is different. It is already designated as no motorized vehicles, period. I don't believe even mountain bikes are allowed in designated Wilderness areas. With the exception of Alaska, only small patches of forest (or desert) are designated Wilderness areas.

The problem is livestock. They have access to almost all Federal and state land, including wilderness areas.

[Terry Wallace]

Yes ma'am... horses "belong" in widerness areas....how else are we going to pull those vehicles out of the area when people dis-obey Forset service signs????

When I worked for the forest service... we had some people drive two 4wd into the wilderness area...of course they drove up an arroyo and got both vehicles stuck! They were stuck about 1 mile "in". They were of course violating the law..and NOOOO a "wrecker" could not be called to get them out.... It was a mule team and horseback riders that got them out....at an expense of about $3K...that was in the late 1970's!

How about when you have a plane crash? What do you think helps get the plane pieces out?

I am totally against closing the wilderness to horses. I lived 2 miles from the edge of the wilderness in Gunnison, Colorado. We rode there a lot...for the PEACE...and quiet... and there were loads of elk there...in fact, elk came right down to our pasture to graze the willows in the ditches along the stream....not to mention the haystacks!
I didn't see any elk really "bothered" by horses... you could ride fairly close to them and they didn't bolt away....

Horses helped discover and settle this country.... they are an animal! Cattle used to be able to be in the wilderness...can they still? What would the difference be?

I don't think elk or deer are very endangered... they are now game-farmed and there seems to be plenty of both here...in fact...Too many!

If we let them proceed with closing these areas...where will it stop?
What will get closed next?

[DebbieS]

I ride on forest service land almost exclusively. We sometimes have to share the trails with bikes, atvs, and hikers. We have 2 beautiful 100+ mile trails closeby where motorized vehicles are not allowed. You can sure tell the difference. We always see cattle, deer, and sometimes elk. You can see buffalo grazing out in the Badlands. I think seeing the other animals out there is a great part of the package.

I also have to say, my neighbor grazes cattle on his land every fall/winter until calving season starts. His pastures look so much better than mine when it comes back in the spring/summer. My horses are very picky so I have much more weeds to deal with.

Since hunting season has started here (Oct 1), all the cattle are gone from forest service lands. The grasses have plenty of time to come back by next spring/summer. Our forests are beautiful. I'm just happy there are places like that to ride my horse.

No Motors Allowed - trail is kept narrow, very steep and challenging in some areas:
http://www.animalstaples.com/personal/093006_cent_trail6.jpg

Motors allowed (mostly snowmobiles, atvs) - see how wide the trail is, and most of the trail is flat
http://www.animalstaples.com/personal/aspen_trail.jpg

[PasoVicki]

It seems to me that there are two separate issues here: whether to allow livestock to LIVE in wilderness areas, and whether to allow people on horseback to VISIT wilderness areas.

I'd vote a definite 'no' on allowing livestock to live in/graze in designated wilderness areas. (And I'd vote a definite 'yes' to native wildlife -- both predators and prey animals -- being allowed to live in those areas.)

However, I'd vote 'yes' to people (on foot and/or on horseback) being allowed to visit and enjoy those areas, as long as they follow certain predetermined rules (no littering/leave the area as you found it/etc.) -- and as long as they accept the risk of coming into contact with the native wildlife there. I'd also expect people who violate the rules to be subject to severe consequences, including being forbidden further access to the wilderness.

[Terry Wallace]

Thats a good way of thinking PasoVicki... I like it (riders visiting)... except I would not want any BLM mustangs run off of the wilderness areas...and some (a small percentage) of wilderness area does have BLM "stangs" on it.... I consider them "wild animals" for the most part...even though they are horses....

[Beth Worden]

I ALWAYS vote YES when it means Yes to ride, or NO to not ride horses in an area. I wanna ride. I am willing to share with ATV's, bikes, hikers, etc. I just want to ride. My riding areas are "shrunk" and I long for the wide open that you folks out west have. I ride 2 miles and posted sign, ride 2 more, same thing. Sucks.