Well, some random thoughts, in no particular order:
BTW, Every time one of these lawsuits arise, frivolous or not, the end result is us the backpackers always who suffer most. Quotas invariably get lowered and access, once easy obtained, becomes increasingly more restricted.
Never seen that happen -- not as a result of lawsuits anyway. Not in Yosemite, not in the Inyo, not in Sequoia Kings. Stock use on the Inyo got somewhat more restricted as a result of the HSHA lawsuit against them for not giving the same consideration to the Wilderness Act as they again challenged in the Sequoia Kings lawsuit. All of the same pack stations that were i business 20 years ago are still in business. I don't think quotas for people have changed in 20 years or even more.
The main thing is this: stock cause a LOT of environmental damage to fragile alpine (and subalpine) ecosystems. The Blackwell decision (against the Inyo) said that USFS did not prove there was a need
for stock and ordered them to come up with a justification. The same is true in the Sequoia Kings case.
Further, the mere desire for wanting to do a trip by stock does not equate to a need. So just because people want to take a stock trip in Wilderness doesn't justify the agency's responsibility in limiting that use to prevent damage.
the Wilderness Act requires the Forest Service to limit public use of commercial services in the wilderness for recreational, scenic and other authorized purposes to the extent necessary and only as consistent with the overall imperative of preserving and protecting the wilderness character of the land. Defendants must reconcile the use of commercial services with what the land can tolerate while remaining wilderness, so as not to elevate recreation over longtime preservation of the wilderness character.
So however much people may say they've never seen any damage or that stock should be grandfathered in or that such lawsuits are frivolous, the 9th Circuit (and two federal courts below them) have said unambiguously: Wilderness, it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
So once again, no one is shutting down stock trips into the Sierra. But agencies are being required to consider more carefully the damage that stock (in this case) have and whether that's justified under the Wilderness Act. Essentially, the courts are leveling the playing field -- requiring the same standards for stock as are required for backpackers.