SEKI - Comment Period - Wilderness Stewardship Plan -

[gdurkee]

yeh, it's unclear on the quota restrictions. Data would be nice... . The thing is, the current quotas don't fill up all that often anymore. Big weekends, yes, and a few trailheads take the brunt. But if they don't fill up, then lowering them (plus whatever weird voodoo they try to make them zone specific) just doesn't seem that great a change to actual use. #6, maybe, but I still am not convinced.

I just read the comments from another retired NPS person (WT). His were pretty close to what I posted: zones unworkable, make a distinction between stock use and grazing (not the same).

You're spot on with administrative stock. That's half the use nights and a major, major impact that affects commercial users.

But I just don't understand how grazing of meadows by stock is accepted as part of the natural state of wilderness. It's not just you, it's everyone in NPS now. The whole management program is directed towards tweaking grazing nights, which is great. But what about people (and the meadow's ecology) who want and deserve a totally grazing, stock-free meadow? It's outrageous NPS doesn't provide that.

I've used this quote many times, but Randy had it absolutely right:

All the meadows in Evolution Valley were grazed this summer, and they all looked it. Yet Franklin Meadow apparently was not, and in October it was a place of knee high grasses, ripe and open panicles drifting on the moving air, luminous-bronze in the backlight. It was a very different place and a very different emotional experience of a mountain meadow, and entirely consistent with what one might rightly expect of a national park backcountry. It was a garden. I sometimes wonder whether range management concepts are any more applicable to our business than timber management concepts. The difference between a grazed meadow and a logged forest may only be one of scale.
--Randy Morgenson

g.

[oldranger]

George

The unintended consequence of lowering quotas of all TH is that the diversion from the popular ones to TH that currently do not have quota issues (but would also have lower quotas) would be to increase the frequency of THs with quotas met and the likelyhood that people will be turned away.

The big problem with all aspects of the proposed preliminary alternatives is that they are not issue driven. The only issues that the "Supplemental Info" identifies are global issue that are beyond the parks ability to address in a significant way. The rest of the info identifies programs and responsibilities but not problems or issues that need to be addressed.

So I would expect that good preliminary alternatives should be addressing identified problems. So to hit your pet peeve. An issue would be "is current management of stock use in the wilderness changing the viability of meadows?" A separate issue would be "is current management of stock use affecting the visual quality of visitors experience?" As I read the alternatives there was simply a shotgun approach to create different management practices based on an unidentified range of management philosophies. The NPS needs to clearly identify "issues" before the reasonableness of alternatives can be addressed.

Mike

[Wandering Daisy]

Oh my! Now rangers get to be "poo police"! Are we going to use DNA as evidence?

[oldranger]

WD

Actually I visualized TH monitors to check that you have an appropriate amount when exiting.

Mike

[AlmostThere]

Definitely staying away from freeze dried meals! Constipation might affect my quota.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk 2

[oldranger]

My comment to SEKI:


As a former SEKI Backcountry ranger I am dismayed at the quality of the proposed preliminary Alternatives. As you should know Alternatives are supposed to be issue driven. The only issues clearly stated in the supplementary information are those global issues that are beyond the scope of of a park’s management responsibilities and a brief mention of the use of electronic devices. The purpose and need properly cite the relevant congressional legislation. However the problems (issues) that need to be addressed are not. While the alternatives address controlling use numbers of backpackers, stock, and stock users there is no clear statement of problems associated with current management practices—unless there is a problem or perceived problem there is no need for changes in management. Please state the issues clearly and then develop alternatives to resolve them. From my experience much of Alternative 4-6 imply problems that, except in extremely limited areas, do not exist and consequently with out documentation of problems seem to create an unreasonable range in the alternatives.

A couple (but not necessarily all) questions that should be asked are:

Are current regulations resulting in degrading habitat within wilderness areas within the park? If so what is being degraded, where is such degradation occurring, and which regulations are resulting in such degradation?

Are current regulations resulting in degrading the wilderness experience of visitors? If so how, where, when, and again which regulations are contributing to degrading the wilderness experience of visitors?

Alternatives should be developed only after asking and answering these and other relevant questions.

Remember all conceivable issues and alternatives need not be considered in detail. Just because Joe Blow says something is a problem for him does not mean you have to consider it in detail. You can consider it and decide it is not an issue (with a proper rationalization.) You may also consider and eliminate an alternative from detailed consideration. I would say that would be the proper way to deal with much of Alternative 6 that would reduce quotas so much that use levels would drop to a level that no further regulation was needed. It seems that both the Wilderness Act and the Organic Act would rule out such a regulation because too few people could experience the Wilderness.

Finally good regulations are easy to follow! Alternatives should, in the end, be simple, easy to follow, and reasonable. Regulations resulting in nearly 100% compliance are much better than complex regulations that result in increased management surveillance, 50% compliance, and 50% of the users becoming criminals.

Finally (really this time) I know one specific issue, that actually would have to be included in the two issues I stated above, us the impacts of stock ues on the natural resources and on the visitors’ wilderness experience. Whatever alternatives develop concerning stock use and the impacts of stock use by both private and commercial users must also include full disclosure of NPS stock use and consider alternives for NPS use of stock in SEKI.

Note to HST folks: at this stage of the game it is not helpful to say " blah blah is the outcome I want" it is much more important to help them to frame the issues (especially since they did not do so) Arguing about alternatives is silly unless you can agree on the problems that must be addressed by the alternatives. For example George and I agree that there is a problem associated with stock feeding on meadows. And there are enough people that thinks so that the NPS cannot ignore the issue without, in the end, going to court. I just want to make sure they agree that it is an issue. Now a range of alternatives could range from continue existing management (required no action alternative) to (whoops) even more use (hopefully not) to exclusion of stock (riding and pack animals) from the park. There could be lots of variation, e.g. same numbers but certain meadow closed permanently to grazing, rotation of meadows open/closed to grazing, control of or reduction of animal nights allowed per meadow, reduction in number of stock allowed on overnight trips, etc. Whatever the Alternative it has to be judged in terms of how it resolves the issue not simply on some broad philosophical basis or specific "I want x because I don't like y."

Oh yeah after my days as a backcountry ranger I became what is sometimes derisively referred to as a NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) nurd. So my practical experience in the backcountry is matched to an understanding of Federal Planning Process.

Remember if you don't participate in the process no whining about the outcome!

Mike

[gdurkee]

Good comments overall. I have to wonder why the alternatives are not issue driven. It's being written primarily by Denver, though with park people weighing in. Denver should know better, that's what they do... .

And, of course, right on with

Remember if you don't participate in the process no whining about the outcome!

As mentioned, it's a mess of a document. What Mike, myself and others have posted here will help, I hope. Also check out the High Sierra HIkers web site. They just sent out a flyer with their recommendations for comments.

g.

[RooPhillip]

Also check out the High Sierra HIkers web site. They just sent out a flyer with their recommendations for comments.

George, can you post a link? I've checked their site and don't see anything recent. Thanks!

[gdurkee]

Hmmm. You're right. It came in the mail and I had assumed they'd posted it on their web site. I'll try to scan and post it.

g.

[tomba]

Thank you George for bringing attention to destination quotas. I missed their significance when I first read these documents.

I am concerned that when SEKI perceives that there is too much human impact in some area, often close to trailheads, they may reduce trailhead quota or maintain current low quota. This in effect limits the total number of people entering the wilderness, even for people that disperse far from trailheads, or even far from trails (cross country).

Instead, they could add additional permits for entering wilderness and traveling the first day beyond popular areas close to the trailhead. I.e., the first night must be spent further than these popular destinations. Yosemite has few permits like this (Glen Aulin Pass Thru, Happy Isles Pass Thru, Mono Meadow). A candidate for such additional quota could be Lakes Trail. A portion of such permits should be reservable.

Additionally, they could add cross country "trailhead" permits were feasible. Yosemite has such permits - Budd Ck. and Nelson Lk. There may be no suitable places in SEKI for such "trailheads" in High Sierra though.

Before reducing quota for a given area, SEKI should present studies that show that human impact is too high in that area and seek feedback on how to address this issue.

They should consider removing quota for trailheads for which quotas rarely fill up. This would remove needless worry for visitors.

I am concerned that most alternatives call for reduced visitor access.

Tomorrow is the last day to submit comments.