Horses

[balzaccom]

Hey--I thought I'd troll for another argument here...this from a recent post to my website. Thoughts?

Horses

Yes, we know that there is a long tradition (and booming business) in horse packing trips into the Sierra. And there are many very reputable packers who make a serious effort to keep their impacts on the wilderness at a minimum. We've camped near some of these groups, and never gave it (of them) a second thought.

And there are also people who would never be able to get into the backcountry if they didn't do it on horseback. We welcome anyone in that category, because we think the wilderness needs all the friends it can get.

But if you are considering a horse packing trip, here are a few things that we would like you to keep in mind.

1. The fact that you were able to pack in beer and steaks does not give you the right to entertain the rest of the valley with rebel yells in the evening. Yippee Yo Kiy-yay may be appropriate on a cattle drive, not a wilderness trip.

2. The fact that your packer left you alone in the wilderness does not mean that you don't have to follow the rules. It does not mean you don't have to know what the rules are. It does not mean that you can break the rules as long as you cover up the evidence before your packer returns.

3. Finally, we've done a few simple calculations on how much a horse impacts a trail vs. a hiker on foot. If you take the overall weight of each, and then divide by the area of the footprint of each animal, it's pretty clear that a horse does more damage to the trail than many, many hikes. (A 200 pound hiker puts about 6 pounds per square inch of pressure on the trail, cushioned by socks and vibram. A 1000 pound horse puts closer to 100 pounds of pressure on the trail, with a steel shoe. Another way to look at this is that one horse is equivalent to 15 hikers. And a pack train with eight horses does more damage to the trail than 1000 hikers.)

This is partcularly obvious in a couple of very difficult trail situations. One is when a trail traverses a meadow--the horses really do pound that trail into a deep rut very quickly. Sure, hikers will also do that, but read the facts above. And when the trail is wet or muddy, it's even more. And the other situation is when the trail crosses a moraine or other rocky section, and the horses kick cobble after cobble into the trail. These are murder on hikers. and can twist an ankle in a second.

We don't really have a solution to this problem. But we can't help thinking that the fees that these packers pay don't come close to repairing the damage the horses do to the trail.


check out my website: http://www.backpackthesierra.com/

[Wickett]

Don't forget thier contributions to the trail. Nothing like muddy horse crap all over the place.

There have been a couple of times I have wished for a horse though.

[SteveH]

boy howdy you really are trying to stir up some trouble and end the doldrums on this board aren't you

I am of mixed emotions on this and agree with you for the most part. It is sad to see all the horse crap all over the trails and how deep the ruts are when hiking through places like Lyle Canyon.

On the other hand there is no way I could have gotten my wife into the back country this past year without the horse supported HSCs. I can easily hike with minimal impact as a backpacker but she is physically incapable of doing this so the only way we could share the wonderful experience we did last year was via the HSC loop which must necessarily be supported by pack train--although I guess you could use an long train of human sherpas to the same effect?

[balzaccom]

Llamas?

[bill-e-g]

I despise horses and mules on the trails. Times have changed,
and hopefully whoever is in charge of things will come to the
conclusion that they do way more damage than good.
They are like a motorbike without wheels. Might as well allow
motorbikes too.
Anybody that thinks horses are just great needs to take a hike
out of Kennedy Meadows in late July towards Relief Reservoir.
Heck even down to Glen Aulin or up to Vogels. later in the year.
Trail ripped to heck, crap all over the place. Ridiculous.
People are lazy and money talks.
Yes, I realize some may not make it out there w/o but there
are ways around that too.

Blaze, could you post your same first post on
yosemitenews.info ?
I'd like to see what people say over there.

Llamas, to my understanding, cannot carry much at all.
Aw, heck, I'm pretty much against all domesticated animals
in the wilderness. Thank goodness Yosemite and Kings
don't allow dogs.

(these are my opinions... if you have others.. I respect them...)

[AlmostThere]

I've been surprised to find that a couple of pack goats can carry about fifty pounds apiece... that's about 70 pounds more than I really need.

The thing about pack animals is if you do base camp and day hike, you end up taking 'em with you everywhere. It's a lazy way to go in one respect and more labor intensive in another - larger livestock need tending. I think I would rather have goats that follow you like pets than a bad tempered llama or mule. They don't make as much of an impact as the larger livestock.

[SteveH]

I despise horses and mules on the trails. Times have changed,
and hopefully whoever is in charge of things will come to the
conclusion that they do way more damage than good.
They are like a motorbike without wheels. Might as well allow
motorbikes too.
Anybody that thinks horses are just great needs to take a hike
out of Kennedy Meadows in late July towards Relief Reservoir.
Heck even down to Glen Aulin or up to Vogels. later in the year.
Trail ripped to heck, crap all over the place. Ridiculous.
People are lazy and money talks.
Yes, I realize some may not make it out there w/o but there
are ways around that too.

These other ways into the back country you reference--care to elaborate?

My wife's physical condition is just not going to let her ever achieve anything approximating leave no trace back packing standards--so under your ideal in her case it would simply be.."no soup for you?"

It was her great joy to see the back country--hauling her little day pack slowly over the HSC loop. To assuage her pride I took virtually everything out of even her day pack except enough to keep it bulked out in shape but even then we had to go slow which caused me to see things I'd probably have otherwise missed. Given that the HSC loop camps must be stocked/maintained by some sort of portage system (horses/lamas/multitudinous pack-bearing hamsters) are you flat out saying abolish the HSC's? There must be some medium between the purifying fire of purists who'd ban all but the most ardent LNT advocates and another extreme that hauls our vastly overweight populace (President Taft anyone?) into the back country? Is it possible that we currently have something best possible for both?

[bill-e-g]

(these are my opinions... if you have others.. I respect them...)

Look, I understand the benefit of the HSCs.

I guess what I would say to think about is extrapolate it to the
entire Sierra. Put them EVERYWHERE. Would that really be good?
Yes, I heard you regarding "best of both worlds".

How about get rid of all but 2 of them. Have a separate trail for
horses & pack train.

But, yes, to put it bluntly, I think they should all be removed.

With today's equipment I would contend that there are a very large
number of places that are spectacular that one could take
someome who can only hike. The other person could take all
the equipment.


"Stock use is limited to 25 head." Ridiculous

[Wickett]

Stock use is limited to 25 but backpackers are limited to 15? WTF?

[oakroscoe]

I come down on the side of the horsepackers on this one. Obviously, it's a heated topic for a lot of people. But it was refreshing to see a civil discussion instead of childish name calling and insults.

I usually do one horsepacking trip a year where they drop us off as far as they can go in a day and the. We continue in on foot for the next few days.

As to the point about beer, I've come across plenty of rowdily intoxicated backpackers who brought a fifth in of their beverage of choice. Means of arrival doesn't dictate behavior.

Again I believe I'm in the minority here, but I would love for dogs to be allowed on the trails. I really enjoy having a well trained dog with me when I'm in the National Forest. I never really understood the bannishment of dogs in the Park.

It really seems that the next logical step is to tear up every road in the Park, demolish every building and manmade thing and then only allow backpackers to enter the park on foot.

[balzaccom]

oakroscoe

If you want civil discussion, you don't need to suggest extreme methods as a "logical next step."

My biggest concern with horses, as I stated in the OP, is that they do such damage to the trails. And no, I don't see packers taking any steps to ameliorate that situation---although I also willingly admit that I am not in all places at all times.

And let's let this topic continue for some time as a civil discussion...and then I'll raise the dog question!

grin

[bill-e-g]

"It really seems that the next logical step is to tear up every road in the Park, demolish every building and manmade thing and then only allow backpackers to enter the park on foot."

You're getting close to the vision of what Kings Canyon is suppose to be.

ALOT of the trail work being done is because the trail needs to
hold up the wear and tear of these beasts of burden. Without
them it would need very little upkeep.

As for horsepacking... I'd just maybe have people think if EVERYONE
used that method ... would you want to hike any of the trails?

It's not that much damage... it's only me... it's only 1 piece of toilet
paper... I'm just one person... I can't have an impact...

Again, go to some places where horse people camp. Shee-it all over
the place. Just last year thru Evolution Valley just going thru the
meadow ... crap all over the place...
The reality is actually the number of packers has gone down over
the years. But they aren't going away simply due to the fact
that there is a demand for it and people don't realize the impact.

[centurycyclist]

While I am not particularly fond of hiking with horse manure on the trail, I do understand that many people cannot make the trip without a furry escort. Note, that this year, we met a 90+ year gentleman at Sunrise HSC who had been hiking the HSC loop with his family since his children were young, and this trip, he was accompanied by his adult daughter. On foot, slow, but sure. That being said, I really think that no matter WHO you are, how you are getting to and from, you need to respect the fact that MOST of us who are in the back country, whether or not we are camping or doing to HSC< are there for the beauty and the PEACE AND QUIET! Meaning, ditch the cell phones, even if you get service, clean up after yourself, and no partying. Please, who really has the energy to party anyway after a long day on foot? And if you do, do it somewhere else!

[balzaccom]

Centurycyclist, huh? Me too...

The best horse and rider combination we've seen in Yosemite was a couple of years ago, when we were hiking down the trail from Mono Meadows to Illilouette Creek and beyond. Coming up the other direction was a party of three people and a horse. The two men were carrying backpacks, and the horse also had a pack...but the woman was actually hanging on to the horse's tail and letting the horse pull her up the hill!

We started laughing, but they explained that the woman was actually not capable of walking all that way, and had been riding the horse, until it came up lame. This was the solution to getting all of them back out again.

I still chuckle about it...and admire that patient horse!

[centurycyclist]

yes, I ride centuries. I think this horse question is difficult---obviously, if you can hike you should hike. If you cannot, then you should respect the unwritten code of the back country--peace, quiet, minimal impact, etc. to the best of your ability, erring on the side of being considerate of those who love solitude.