|
|
  That's White "Man" to You
Posts: 5515
 
| I posted this in the other tread but didn't want this lost in the jumble.
As we talk about the rancher issue I received an email from a friend requesting comments on rule changes in the Bryce Canyon National Park. This park is an hour from my house. I basicly grew up ridding my horses in the park. Now they want to restrict private citizens form riding in the park and make it incredibly difficult for guide companys to access the park as well. Here is the email. Feel free to send in a comment if you are willing.
Back County Horsemen of America
Working to keep trails open on public lands.
Back Country Horsemen of America E-Blast
April 7, 2014
Action Alert: Deadline for Comments: May 24, 2014 (midnight Mountain time zone)
Proposed Rule Change for Private Horse Use –Bryce Canyon National Park
Dear BCHA members,
Bryce Canyon National Park has proposed changes for users of privately-owned stock on designated horse trails within the park. The changes are intended to ensure the safety of all visitors and to protect park resources. The park initiated a public comment period on the proposed changes for 30 days beginning March 26, 2014.
The changes proposed by Bryce Canyon National Park include a requirement that all horseback riding must be coordinated with the park’s authorized trail-ride concessioner, prior to entering the park. Of concern, however, is that private stock users also would be required to the pay a substantial fee to the park’s concessioner to guide and accompany all privately-owned stock riding groups for the duration of their trip over any portion of the eight miles of park trails available for stock use.
The fee that would be charged by the concessioner for this service would be based on the number of riders, up to eight riders per guide. The proposed fee schedule would range from $100 for the first rider to $345 for eight riders.
For more information, view the Park’s website here:
http://www.nps.gov/brca/parknews/proposed-rule-change-for-private-horse-use.htm
If approved, the proposed changes would represent a new and disturbing precedent among National Parks to require all private stock users to hire a commercial guide. We are not aware of any National Park where such a requirement currently exists. Nor does BCHA want to see this precedent established at Bryce Canyon. In order to adequately resolve concerns regarding visitor safety, we believe that alternative measures can be taken that emphasize rider education, resource protection, and the role of law enforcement in dealing with rogue riders who choose to violate the rules.
The public is encouraged to submit comments by April 24, 2014, via email to the following address: [email protected], or mail your comments to: Program Analyst, Bryce Canyon National Park, P.O. Box 640201, Bryce, Utah 84764
BCHA’s Advisor for Wilderness & Recreation is coordinating the public comment effort with BCH Utah’s Officer for Public Lands. They recommend you consider including some or all of the following talking points in your comments to Bryce Canyon National Park.
Remember, “Cool heads prevail.” It’s important to be courteous, to make constructive recommendations that address the safety problem and, importantly, to demonstrate your passion and knowledge by adding your personal story among these talking points:
· I am writing about the Proposed Rule Change for Private Horse Use.
· As a private user of recreational stock, I recognize the importance of minimizing safety hazards and resource damage on our public lands.
· I appreciate the Park Superintendent’s announcement of a 30-day comment period on the matter. By doing so, he recognized the high level of public interest and desire of visitors who use their horses and mules to enjoy the beauty and splendor of Bryce Canyon and other National Parks.
· I understand that portions of the trails at Bryce Canyon are unusually narrow and steep. This is why horse trails at the park are designated “one-way,” in order to minimize the potential for parties on horseback to pass each other along segments of trail where it is dangerous to do so.
· I understand that additional measures are needed to avoid private and commercially-guided parties from converging at those sections of trail where there is high safety risk.
· I do not, however, support the park’s current proposal that all private stock parties be required to hire the services of a commercial guide.
· Instead, I understand the Park Superintendent is open to constructive comments that would help alleviate the safety situation and ensure that riders stay on designated trails and not damage park resources.
· In addition to the currently required 48-hour advance check-in by private stock users, I recommend the park adopt an alternative that would restrict the time(s) of day a private party be allowed to traverse sections of trail where there is high safety risk, in order to allow commercially-guided trips safe passage.
· I understand the need to minimize damage to off-trail soils and cultural resources.
· I recommend that private stock parties be required to check in--prior to riding in the park--both to coordinate departure/itinerary logistics regarding rider safety and to receive a briefing from either park or commercial outfitter personnel. The briefing could be used to convey regulations pertaining to use of park trails, including prohibitions on off-trail travel, cutting of switchbacks and riding parallel or side-by-side on designated trails where the trail tread is narrow.
· I do not object to paying a modest fee to cover agency and/or commercial outfitter costs associated with the recommended pre-departure briefing for private stock parties.
· I encourage the Park Service to explore methods by which NPS law enforcement personnel can more readily identify and make contact with stock users who do not follow the rules. These methods should emphasize streamlined communication with park volunteers and the stock concession operator to report violations in a timely manner.
· I understand that Back Country Horsemen of Utah (BCHU) has volunteered to assist the Park Service in developing a curriculum of the pre-trip training for private stock users. They have several Master Trainers versed in Leave No Trace techniques, and the Park Service would benefit from cultivating closer relations with BCHU and enlisting their assistance.
· I appreciate this opportunity to provide public comment.
· Thank you for your effort to make the unique trail experience offered at Bryce Canyon safe and affordable for everyone. I look forward to my next visit to Bryce Canyon National Park.
BCHA: Working to insure that public lands remain open to recreational stock use.
Forgot to renew your membership? Donate to BCHA now!
This e-blast is not meant to take the place of our hard copy newsletter but to inform and communicate on issues in a timelier manner. This does not take away from the roll of your National Directors on issues of a more BCHA nature that are the responsibility of your elected National Directors. Please feel free to pass this newsletter on to members and non-members who might not have email.
Don’t forget to Like us on Facebook.com at: http://www.facebook.com/#!/bcha.org. We have had to date 2,260 likes on our Facebook page. It is a good place to post your chapter, affiliates and at-large members to post updates and information on accomplishments and upcoming events and work days.
About Back Country Horsemen of America
BCHA is a non-profit corporation made up of state organizations, affiliates, and at large members. Their efforts have brought about positive changes in regards to the use of horses and stock in the wilderness and public lands.
If you want to know more about Back Country Horsemen of America or become a member, visit our website: www.backcountryhorse.com, call 888-893-5161, or write PO Box 1367, Graham, WA 98338-1367. The future of horse use on public lands is in our hands!
Remove me from future E-Blast and Alert Messages
| |
| | |
 Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
  
Location: Florida.. | That is very sad.. it happened here as well..
with that said.. people are so sue happy these days.. parks start worrying about that. imho and put to many restrictions.. | |
| | |
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | I'm going to play the DNR side a bit here.
A big potential issue with horses is that in more fragile areas, such as our local IN sand dune areas, the horses can easily destroy the terrain and plants. The plant life is really fragile, and even people's off-trail hiking on foot has unfortunately destroyed some areas in our local parks. Another issue I can think of is the possible weed contamination that could occur from outside hay and/or seeds in the manure. It's difficult to control and invasive plant species can cause a lot of problems with the ecosystem.
One more potential issue is budgetary concerns... the trails need to be cleared yearly, signs replaces, etc etc. Budget cuts have really made it hard for parks near me to keep up with even keeping the grass cut down on the horse trails at some parks near me.
Honestly though, it seems to me that the main concern here is the liability. Were there any accidents in the park that resulted in a lawsuit?
The flip side is that this land is owned by the public. If a large number of people use this land for riding, then closing the land for riding does not seem like the best idea for this land. After all, what good is a park to the taxpayer if the land cannot be ultilized?
The goal of the DNR should be both to preserve the natural state of the land but also keeping that land available for public use. It is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, but I believe it should be possible to do so in this situation. | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1561
|
Cops anally and vaginally rape people roadside and shoot innocent citizens ,I dont see cops being banned due to lawsuits...
Its all about control PERIOD. | |
| | |
That's White "Man" to You
Posts: 5515
| barrelracr131 - 2014-04-10 8:05 PM I'm going to play the DNR side a bit here. A big potential issue with horses is that in more fragile areas, such as our local IN sand dune areas, the horses can easily destroy the terrain and plants. The plant life is really fragile, and even people's off-trail hiking on foot has unfortunately destroyed some areas in our local parks. Another issue I can think of is the possible weed contamination that could occur from outside hay and/or seeds in the manure. It's difficult to control and invasive plant species can cause a lot of problems with the ecosystem. One more potential issue is budgetary concerns... the trails need to be cleared yearly, signs replaces, etc etc. Budget cuts have really made it hard for parks near me to keep up with even keeping the grass cut down on the horse trails at some parks near me. Honestly though, it seems to me that the main concern here is the liability. Were there any accidents in the park that resulted in a lawsuit? The flip side is that this land is owned by the public. If a large number of people use this land for riding, then closing the land for riding does not seem like the best idea for this land. After all, what good is a park to the taxpayer if the land cannot be ultilized? The goal of the DNR should be both to preserve the natural state of the land but also keeping that land available for public use. It is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, but I believe it should be possible to do so in this situation.
Making the horsemen pay a high fee and schedule with the trail manager doesn't decrease liability or weeds. It only adds red tape and makes it more difficult to access public lands. As far as damage, a horse doesn't really hurt the trail that they grade weekly with a mini-catapillar. Also, in my opionion even if it is only one person using the park, it is public land, access should never be restricted on public land. | |
| | |
 Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | barrelracr131 - 2014-04-10 8:05 PM
I'm going to play the DNR side a bit here.
A big potential issue with horses is that in more fragile areas, such as our local IN sand dune areas, the horses can easily destroy the terrain and plants. The plant life is really fragile, and even people's off-trail hiking on foot has unfortunately destroyed some areas in our local parks. Another issue I can think of is the possible weed contamination that could occur from outside hay and/or seeds in the manure. It's difficult to control and invasive plant species can cause a lot of problems with the ecosystem.
One more potential issue is budgetary concerns... the trails need to be cleared yearly, signs replaces, etc etc. Budget cuts have really made it hard for parks near me to keep up with even keeping the grass cut down on the horse trails at some parks near me.
Honestly though, it seems to me that the main concern here is the liability. Were there any accidents in the park that resulted in a lawsuit?
The flip side is that this land is owned by the public. If a large number of people use this land for riding, then closing the land for riding does not seem like the best idea for this land. After all, what good is a park to the taxpayer if the land cannot be ultilized?
The goal of the DNR should be both to preserve the natural state of the land but also keeping that land available for public use. It is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, but I believe it should be possible to do so in this situation.
agreed
| |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 1857
| So they want to force you to have a guide and then make you pay a hefty fee to have one! All because they are worried about your safety, my a$$! Restrictions, restrictions, restrictions! Arizona, Texas, then Utah, and the list will grow. Public Lands will not be public anymore if we continue to allow them to choke us out. One rancher, hiker, hunter, photographer at a time(and they are succeeding because of society's view that "it's not effecting me, I don't care") These public lands will be turned into wind farms, drilling pads, Biodiversity areas, all the while we are standing in our First Amendment "zones" wondering how it all happened. Most of society has never had to stand for something bigger than themselves and most won't. They'll pick the easy route with their hand out!
*sent my comment in this morning! (no i'm not from around there, not even close)
Edited by FlyingJT 2014-04-11 9:35 AM
| |
| | |
That's White "Man" to You
Posts: 5515
| FlyingJT - 2014-04-11 9:30 AM So they want to force you to have a guide and then make you pay a hefty fee to have one! All because they are worried about your safety, my a$$! Restrictions, restrictions, restrictions! Arizona, then Utah, and the list will grow. Public Lands will not be public anymore if we continue to allow them to choke us out. One rancher, hiker, hunter, photographer at a time(and they are succeeding because of society's view that "it's not effecting me, I don't care") These public lands will be turned into wind farms, drilling pads, Biodiversity areas, all the while we are standing in our First Amendment "zones" wondering how it all happened. Most of society has never had to stand for something bigger than themselves and most won't. They'll pick the easy route with their hand out! *sent my comment in this morning! (no i'm not from around there, not even close)
Thanks for your help! | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 1857
| Is what's happening in Arizona, Texas, and starting of some in Utah have anything to do with this: http://www.savethetrails.us/WildlandsProject.html
http://www.discerningtoday.org/members/Analyses/biodiversity.htm
http://www.cbd.int/
Edited by FlyingJT 2014-04-11 9:54 AM
| |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | barrelracr131 - 2014-04-10 7:05 PM I'm going to play the DNR side a bit here. A big potential issue with horses is that in more fragile areas, such as our local IN sand dune areas, the horses can easily destroy the terrain and plants. The plant life is really fragile, and even people's off-trail hiking on foot has unfortunately destroyed some areas in our local parks. Another issue I can think of is the possible weed contamination that could occur from outside hay and/or seeds in the manure. It's difficult to control and invasive plant species can cause a lot of problems with the ecosystem. One more potential issue is budgetary concerns... the trails need to be cleared yearly, signs replaces, etc etc. Budget cuts have really made it hard for parks near me to keep up with even keeping the grass cut down on the horse trails at some parks near me. Honestly though, it seems to me that the main concern here is the liability. Were there any accidents in the park that resulted in a lawsuit? The flip side is that this land is owned by the public. If a large number of people use this land for riding, then closing the land for riding does not seem like the best idea for this land. After all, what good is a park to the taxpayer if the land cannot be ultilized? The goal of the DNR should be both to preserve the natural state of the land but also keeping that land available for public use. It is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, but I believe it should be possible to do so in this situation.
Just because I love to argue what SEEM to be valid points!
It's a fallacy that the land is so very fragile. Let's talk goatheads...lol. And weed contamination...how are they going to keep the birds from migrating & bring various seeds & such into their 'pristine' parks?
Grooming the trails...well, I'm sure it's a nice gesture...I do wonder how man ever survived without a gov't aggency keeping tabs & making it all just so...and so willing to take on the liability if there's a problem! Wow, what standup guys they are, too! They must feel like they have a whole shool of 1st graders they must keep from falling off a cliff...whew.
What IS the 'natural state'? Does it always stay the same? Frozen in time?
Impossible.
With all that said, I personally think we lost our way when we stopped policing our own lives...when did we get to the point that we didn't want to get involved so we 'hired' a uniform to take the heat?
I remember a time when people picked up their own trash...and not because it was the law...it was because your neighbors, family, friends...'peers'...were watching you. And we had a little pride.
| |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 1898
| barrelracr131 - 2014-04-10 8:05 PM I'm going to play the DNR side a bit here. A big potential issue with horses is that in more fragile areas, such as our local IN sand dune areas, the horses can easily destroy the terrain and plants. The plant life is really fragile, and even people's off-trail hiking on foot has unfortunately destroyed some areas in our local parks. Another issue I can think of is the possible weed contamination that could occur from outside hay and/or seeds in the manure. It's difficult to control and invasive plant species can cause a lot of problems with the ecosystem. One more potential issue is budgetary concerns... the trails need to be cleared yearly, signs replaces, etc etc. Budget cuts have really made it hard for parks near me to keep up with even keeping the grass cut down on the horse trails at some parks near me. Honestly though, it seems to me that the main concern here is the liability. Were there any accidents in the park that resulted in a lawsuit? The flip side is that this land is owned by the public. If a large number of people use this land for riding, then closing the land for riding does not seem like the best idea for this land. After all, what good is a park to the taxpayer if the land cannot be ultilized? The goal of the DNR should be both to preserve the natural state of the land but also keeping that land available for public use. It is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, but I believe it should be possible to do so in this situation.
If they feel it is necessary to impose a tax on the horseman to use the public land that is intended for public use than all parties should have to pay the tax! Â Or better yet, no one at all!
What stops contamination from happening from hikers clothes, gear and boots? Â
If the pressence of the horses is so invasive and distructive, what would be the necessity to keep the grass cleared from the trail?
Living in an area with 6 pack stations that access the back country these topics consistantly grace our local news. Â The Forest Circus limited the "use permit" for these outfits to a specific number of horses per day, per month, and if you want to ride into the back country privately, on your own stock, you are also required to pull a permit from the Circus. Â If the usage permits have been filled for that day, well you're just SOL, better try tomorrow, or next week, or maybe even next month. Â These shananigans have greatly impacted the earning potential for the outfits in the last decade or so. Â They used to have an unlimited access to the trails from the time snow melted until they choose to shut down for the winter, but because of groups like, Friends of the Inyo and The Sierra Club who convinced the Circus the horses were destructive, they have become ever so limited by "day use permits". Â
What people who are not offiliated with the outfitters and back country don't understand in our area, is those outfitters are what keep the trail accessable and clear of debris for their hiking pleasure. Â
And on the topic of cluttered trails, lets talk about the destruction that foot traffic tends to leave on the area. Â There are no trash barrels or out houses in the back country, and let me tell you those, hikers are for more invasive on the land than any horse ever thought about being! Â At one point the human waste on the Mt. Whitney trail got so bad that the Forest Circus had to start asking people to back out their own waste, why? Â Because people didn't even have the common decensy to get off the trail to do their business. Â
We hunt in the Bristle Cone National Forest on top of the White Mountains in California. Â Last year during rifle season, we encountered a road block created by "The Friends of the Inyo". Â They had moved hundreds of pounds of rocks and killed countless numbers of sage brush in what is considered a "ecologically volunerable area" to keep motorists from accessing a road that has been in place for over 100 years. Â They did far more damage attempting to keep people out of the area than any one could have ever done driving down an established road!Â
When we go fishing in the back country, we make it a habbit of spending a minimum of 30 minutes picking up garbage left behind by hiking parties. Â I can say from experience, the backcountry horseman in a whole a far better "stewards of the land" than the groups that are trying so deligently to force them out! Â Â Â Â Â Â
Â
Edited by cyount2009 2014-04-11 11:02 AM
| |
| | |
Warmblood with Wings
Posts: 27846
Location: Florida.. | cyount2009 - 2014-04-11 11:20 AM barrelracr131 - 2014-04-10 8:05 PM I'm going to play the DNR side a bit here. A big potential issue with horses is that in more fragile areas, such as our local IN sand dune areas, the horses can easily destroy the terrain and plants. The plant life is really fragile, and even people's off-trail hiking on foot has unfortunately destroyed some areas in our local parks. Another issue I can think of is the possible weed contamination that could occur from outside hay and/or seeds in the manure. It's difficult to control and invasive plant species can cause a lot of problems with the ecosystem. One more potential issue is budgetary concerns... the trails need to be cleared yearly, signs replaces, etc etc. Budget cuts have really made it hard for parks near me to keep up with even keeping the grass cut down on the horse trails at some parks near me. Honestly though, it seems to me that the main concern here is the liability. Were there any accidents in the park that resulted in a lawsuit? The flip side is that this land is owned by the public. If a large number of people use this land for riding, then closing the land for riding does not seem like the best idea for this land. After all, what good is a park to the taxpayer if the land cannot be ultilized? The goal of the DNR should be both to preserve the natural state of the land but also keeping that land available for public use. It is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, but I believe it should be possible to do so in this situation. If they feel it is necessary to impose a tax on the horseman to use the public land that is intended for public use than all parties should have to pay the tax! Or better yet, no one at all!
What stops contamination from happening from hikers clothes, gear and boots?
If the pressence of the horses is so invasive and distructive, what would be the necessity to keep the grass cleared from the trail?
Living in an area with 6 pack stations that access the back country these topics consistantly grace our local news. The Forest Circus limited the "use permit" for these outfits to a specific number of horses per day, per month, and if you want to ride into the back country privately, on your own stock, you are also required to pull a permit from the Circus. If the usage permits have been filled for that day, well you're just SOL, better try tomorrow, or next week, or maybe even next month. These shananigans have greatly impacted the earning potential for the outfits in the last decade or so. They used to have an unlimited access to the trails from the time snow melted until they choose to shut down for the winter, but because of groups like, Friends of the Inyo and The Sierra Club who convinced the Circus the horses were destructive, they have become ever so limited by "day use permits".
What people who are not offiliated with the outfitters and back country don't understand in our area, is those outfitters are what keep the trail accessable and clear of debris for their hiking pleasure.
And on the topic of cluttered trails, lets talk about the destruction that foot traffic tends to leave on the area. There are no trash barrels or out houses in the back country, and let me tell you those, hikers are for more invasive on the land than any horse ever thought about being! At one point the human waste on the Mt. Whitney trail got so bad that the Forest Circus had to start asking people to back out their own waste, why? Because people didn't even have the common decensy to get off the trail to do their business.
We hunt in the Bristle Cone National Forest on top of the White Mountains in California. Last year during rifle season, we encountered a road block created by "The Friends of the Inyo". They had moved hundreds of pounds of rocks and killed countless numbers of sage brush in what is considered a "ecologically volunerable area" to keep motorists from accessing a road that has been in place for over 100 years. They did far more damage attempting to keep people out of the area than any one could have ever done driving down an established road!
When we go fishing in the back country, we make it a habbit of spending a minimum of 30 minutes picking up garbage left behind by hiking parties. I can say from experience, the backcountry horseman in a whole a far better "stewards of the land" than the groups that are trying so deligently to force them out!
I agree with that. | |
| | |
 I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | Looks like maybe having the 1000 armed militia that were headed for Nevada should be kept on speed dial and have a rally for this BS also. | |
| | |
| Nevertooold - 2014-04-12 4:14 PM
Looks like maybe having the 1000 armed militia that were headed for Nevada should be kept on speed dial and have a rally for this BS also.Â
**************************************************************
**************************************************************
GOOD IDEA ... but use TWITTER instead ... one tweet can go to a jillion people ..
This is the reason you see China, India and the Islamic countries barring the use of twitter .... they can summon for help and have a 1000+ headed in your direction ..
When you see all of these nit picking items like this that should only take 30 minutes in a lifetime to copy rules from a park that has successfully helped the public care for a park while they enjoy it.............. MEANS THE GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG AND TOO MANY CLUNKHEADS ARE TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING TO DO .....
FIRE HALF THE PARK AND WILDLIFE AND RANGERS AND YOU WILL SEE THE SERVICE AND BEING COURTEOUS........ IMPROVE A 1000 FOLD ... | |
| | |
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | cyount2009 - 2014-04-11 10:20 AM barrelracr131 - 2014-04-10 8:05 PM I'm going to play the DNR side a bit here. A big potential issue with horses is that in more fragile areas, such as our local IN sand dune areas, the horses can easily destroy the terrain and plants. The plant life is really fragile, and even people's off-trail hiking on foot has unfortunately destroyed some areas in our local parks. Another issue I can think of is the possible weed contamination that could occur from outside hay and/or seeds in the manure. It's difficult to control and invasive plant species can cause a lot of problems with the ecosystem. One more potential issue is budgetary concerns... the trails need to be cleared yearly, signs replaces, etc etc. Budget cuts have really made it hard for parks near me to keep up with even keeping the grass cut down on the horse trails at some parks near me. Honestly though, it seems to me that the main concern here is the liability. Were there any accidents in the park that resulted in a lawsuit? The flip side is that this land is owned by the public. If a large number of people use this land for riding, then closing the land for riding does not seem like the best idea for this land. After all, what good is a park to the taxpayer if the land cannot be ultilized? The goal of the DNR should be both to preserve the natural state of the land but also keeping that land available for public use. It is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, but I believe it should be possible to do so in this situation. If they feel it is necessary to impose a tax on the horseman to use the public land that is intended for public use than all parties should have to pay the tax! Or better yet, no one at all!What stops contamination from happening from hikers clothes, gear and boots? If the pressence of the horses is so invasive and distructive, what would be the necessity to keep the grass cleared from the trail?Living in an area with 6 pack stations that access the back country these topics consistantly grace our local news. The Forest Circus limited the "use permit" for these outfits to a specific number of horses per day, per month, and if you want to ride into the back country privately, on your own stock, you are also required to pull a permit from the Circus. If the usage permits have been filled for that day, well you're just SOL, better try tomorrow, or next week, or maybe even next month. These shananigans have greatly impacted the earning potential for the outfits in the last decade or so. They used to have an unlimited access to the trails from the time snow melted until they choose to shut down for the winter, but because of groups like, Friends of the Inyo and The Sierra Club who convinced the Circus the horses were destructive, they have become ever so limited by "day use permits". What people who are not offiliated with the outfitters and back country don't understand in our area, is those outfitters are what keep the trail accessable and clear of debris for their hiking pleasure. And on the topic of cluttered trails, lets talk about the destruction that foot traffic tends to leave on the area. There are no trash barrels or out houses in the back country, and let me tell you those, hikers are for more invasive on the land than any horse ever thought about being! At one point the human waste on the Mt. Whitney trail got so bad that the Forest Circus had to start asking people to back out their own waste, why? Because people didn't even have the common decensy to get off the trail to do their business. We hunt in the Bristle Cone National Forest on top of the White Mountains in California. Last year during rifle season, we encountered a road block created by "The Friends of the Inyo". They had moved hundreds of pounds of rocks and killed countless numbers of sage brush in what is considered a "ecologically volunerable area" to keep motorists from accessing a road that has been in place for over 100 years. They did far more damage attempting to keep people out of the area than any one could have ever done driving down an established road! When we go fishing in the back country, we make it a habbit of spending a minimum of 30 minutes picking up garbage left behind by hiking parties. I can say from experience, the backcountry horseman in a whole a far better "stewards of the land" than the groups that are trying so deligently to force them out!
The high tax is BS, and I never said I agree with their polices or what they are deciding to do FTR
What stops contamination from happening from hikers clothes, gear and boots?
Nothing- That is why you see a lot of invasive species popping up in the parks by me that don't even have horse traffic. They (park rangers and volunteers) have to go through and pull out all the invasive species plants from our parks by hand. It's a PITA and yes I have helped do it as a volunteer. They do set up stations with brushes on them to brush off your boots before you head out to hike to attempt to lessen this from happening.
EX situation at my local park- Black locust are an invasive species of tree, allong with cottonwood trees. The native species are Oak, typically in this area, and the invasives are choking out the natural species. The problem is compounded by the unnatural fire suppression that goes on (the national park is ironically surrounded by industry, so controlled burns that are done are pretty small). The idea of a NP is to use the land but also try to maintain as natural a state as possible and minimize the effects of humans, so that it is a refuge of sorts for plants and animals. So yes, contamination happens anyway, but the DNR workers still want people to come enjoy the land.
If the pressence of the horses is so invasive and distructive, what would be the necessity to keep the grass cleared from the trail?
I can't speak for your type of terrain or topography, but on sand dunes, even foot traffic kills the plants that grow in the sand. Many of those plants and the species in the dunes are endangered. Because people are a-holes and decides to run off the trails, run down the dunes in roped off areas (even though they have areas to climb the dunes designated), there are damaged areas.
And BTW, it's not the horse itself that is neccessarily invasive, it is the hay people bring in that has the potential to contaminate the local plant life worse than manure. Especially if someone brings in crappy weedy hay, and this happens over and over again. When I was in Yosemite, they had some sort of "weed free" hay shipped in for all the livery horses. I read something about it while I was there. But the stables are all run by DNC, not the DNR in Yosemite.
Horses are pretty rough on herbaceous type plants with repeated traffic, but yeah... lots of parks by me don't see enough people on their horse trails to keep the trail mowed. And the park doesn't have the money to mow in the spring to mow until the funds come in for the year, as their budget has been cut numerous times and they have maybe one person working in the office every day. Volunteers come and clear the branches from the trail, cut the branches from the trees, etc etc from a local horseman's club.
You have to understand that our parks out my way are very very small in size. It's not like this is wilderness out here... it is trails in a smaller area, so it is really easy for people to go off trail and trample a large portion of the park at the dunes if the trails are not managed. It is dunes, woods, and a lot of wetland type stuff with a boardwalk. It is a very busy park in the summer because it has a beach on lake Michigan, as well as a nice campground. They do an awesome job of giving folks access to the land but keeping the wildlife there (when the birds migrate you can see tons of endangered species and cool stuff flying around). The situation might be different in a park that is a lot bigger with less foot traffic. This park does not allow horses due to the fragility of some of the ground areas, but more importantly the liability issue of people sharing the trails with riders in the summer because it is SO busy, and the trails are not that wide. The soil is also really sandy, and I think if someone were to ride there it would become really deep very quickly.
They do allow horses at the national park nearby and at other parks in the area. We actually have some really neat horseman's camps in our area too.
Edited because some things were unclear
Edited by barrelracr131 2014-04-13 7:38 PM
| |
| | |
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | musikmaker - 2014-04-11 9:55 AM
barrelracr131 - 2014-04-10 7:05 PM I'm going to play the DNR side a bit here. A big potential issue with horses is that in more fragile areas, such as our local IN sand dune areas, the horses can easily destroy the terrain and plants. The plant life is really fragile, and even people's off-trail hiking on foot has unfortunately destroyed some areas in our local parks. Another issue I can think of is the possible weed contamination that could occur from outside hay and/or seeds in the manure. It's difficult to control and invasive plant species can cause a lot of problems with the ecosystem. One more potential issue is budgetary concerns... the trails need to be cleared yearly, signs replaces, etc etc. Budget cuts have really made it hard for parks near me to keep up with even keeping the grass cut down on the horse trails at some parks near me. Honestly though, it seems to me that the main concern here is the liability. Were there any accidents in the park that resulted in a lawsuit? The flip side is that this land is owned by the public. If a large number of people use this land for riding, then closing the land for riding does not seem like the best idea for this land. After all, what good is a park to the taxpayer if the land cannot be ultilized? The goal of the DNR should be both to preserve the natural state of the land but also keeping that land available for public use. It is sometimes a difficult balance to strike, but I believe it should be possible to do so in this situation.
Just because I love to argue what SEEM to be valid points!
It's a fallacy that the land is so very fragile. Let's talk goatheads...lol. And weed contamination...how are they going to keep the birds from migrating & bring various seeds & such into their 'pristine' parks?
Grooming the trails...well, I'm sure it's a nice gesture...I do wonder how man ever survived without a gov't aggency keeping tabs & making it all just so...and so willing to take on the liability if there's a problem! Wow, what standup guys they are, too! They must feel like they have a whole shool of 1st graders they must keep from falling off a cliff...whew.
What IS the 'natural state'? Does it always stay the same? Frozen in time?
Impossible.
With all that said, I personally think we lost our way when we stopped policing our own lives...when did we get to the point that we didn't want to get involved so we 'hired' a uniform to take the heat?
I remember a time when people picked up their own trash...and not because it was the law...it was because your neighbors, family, friends...'peers'...were watching you. And we had a little pride.Â
I'm on my way off the computer, but I'll chime in fast
Birds migrating is a natural proccess... they also really don't crap that much, and honestly I think they poop so many times they don't have a lot of "carryover", esp when compared to bringing in several bales of hay and the seeds that could be in even one bale
Grooming the trails here is basically cutting the branches down so you can still ride through the woods (otherwise they would take you down... our trees are short compared to the trees I saw in the mountains) and cutting the grass so the ticks don't eat you alive. In our local smaller parks, it's often done by volunteers
Natural state doesn't really mean staying the same, just minimizing the effects of people on the land. The parks are supposed to be wild, and have minimal human effect on the plants and animals. As we know, that doesn't always happen as people often try to "save" this or that species I hear from you guys. We don't really have that out here so much as our protected or endangered species are not a huge focus and we really don't have government lands that are not forest preserve or parks.
As far as picking up trash and things, people are often lazy and just don't care. I volunteered at the state park I mentioned above when I was not working a real job for a short time. There are actually a lot of volunteers that came and helped out with the park... people donated stuff for educational programs... So in a way, people really haven't stopped doing those things- at least not in my area. It was awesome to work there and see the kids come in and out, help with the educational programs (lots of home schooled kids came to those as well for "field trips"), and see kids enjoying nature and being outside. The DNR there reached a good balance of allowing use of the land and enjoyment with maintaining the area as "natural". | |
| | |
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | Itsme - 2014-04-10 8:50 PM Cops anally and vaginally rape people roadside and shoot innocent citizens ,I dont see cops being banned due to lawsuits... Its all about control PERIOD.
well that was graphic | |
| | |
 The Bird Lady
Posts: 6440
Location: The end of the Earth, SE AR | As a wildlife biologist as well as a trail rider, I searched for research to document the federal government's claim that horses spread noxious weed seeds in their manure and that hay brought in to horse camps spreads noxious weed seeds. I could only find one study and that study's findings showed that the theory of domestic animals spreading weeds seeds was unfounded! I wrote to the USFWS when comments were open for a federal refuge that is just a few miles from where we live. I requested that horses be permitted on trails that were open to 4 wheelers and cited the study showing that weed seeds were not a problem. What did they do? They did not allow trail riding for pleasure and instead banned mules and horses for coon hunting. I have also yet to see a study that shows horses are harming sensitive plant communities since most of those areas are far from established trails. Sadly, most if not almost all of their claims are not supported by sound science. | |
| | |
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | rollingrfarm - 2014-04-14 7:40 AM As a wildlife biologist as well as a trail rider, I searched for research to document the federal government's claim that horses spread noxious weed seeds in their manure and that hay brought in to horse camps spreads noxious weed seeds. I could only find one study and that study's findings showed that the theory of domestic animals spreading weeds seeds was unfounded! I wrote to the USFWS when comments were open for a federal refuge that is just a few miles from where we live. I requested that horses be permitted on trails that were open to 4 wheelers and cited the study showing that weed seeds were not a problem. What did they do? They did not allow trail riding for pleasure and instead banned mules and horses for coon hunting. I have also yet to see a study that shows horses are harming sensitive plant communities since most of those areas are far from established trails. Sadly, most if not almost all of their claims are not supported by sound science. I do have to question if the studies being done encompassed all types of ecosystems, or how many studies have actually been done and at what sample size, land area, etc etc.
I'm gonna admit, TBH, I'm more playing the devils advocate than anything else.
Personally, I think that as long as folks stay on marked trails and don't litter, horses overall should not be an issue from an ecological standpoint to the point of eliminating trail riders from an area, period. Problem is, people suck and often don't do that (hiking or otherwise). Now should that actually prohibit people from using the land? Personally, I don't think so. I could see closing trails from time to time for recovery or land maitenance purposes, but I think the park in the above scenario is going overboard if that is in fact their reasoning.
I do see where safety could be a concern, or where the park could be having concerns about liability.
A gal was killed in one of our state parks leading a livery group of trail riders- a branch fell on her and her horse and she died. I don't think her parents sued, but I bet if they had, they would have won- and at the very least, they would have cost the DNR a significant amount in legal fees. It's a shame our society has come to this point, honestly. And not sure about that area, but our parks are on a horribly tight budget.
Edited by barrelracr131 2014-04-14 8:44 AM
| |
| | |
Hungarian Midget Woman
Location: Midwest | Ok, so I found the regs proposed because I apparently missed that on the first read, darn ADD
Kinda seems like they are trying to limit their liablilty by forcing you to pay for a park guide. Also that people were cutting across switchbacks and such- this will happen, but I don't see why they would take this route unless being prompted by the concessioner as the company likely wants to make more money, and possibly threatened suit over the whole "spooking animals" deal mentioned. Probably bogus, but I bet they'd like the monopoly on the this park like the DNC has in Yosemite Valley.... http://www.nps.gov/brca/parknews/proposed-rule-change-for-private-horse-use.htm
After reading their proposed changes (at the link above), it seems like it has little to do with the actual natural environment (as that is seemingly thrown in as an aside) and more to do with making money. What BS, and yeah, totes get why you are pizzed... Also I sent an email to the address above from my work email. Maybe my title will make me sound important (Cytogenetic Technologist). lol | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line