For Immediate Release: August 30, 2004

High Sierra Hikers Association
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics
Wilderness Watch

Contacts: George Nickas, Wilderness Watch (406) 542-2048
Andy Stahl, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (541) 484-2692

SAN FRANCISCO – On Wednesday, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned a district court ruling that would have allowed the US Forest Service to permit commercial packstock operations in two Sierra Nevada Wildernesses at levels that continue to damage the wilderness character of the protected areas. The appeals court upheld the lower court’s determination that the Forest Service needed to reduce the amount of commercial use while it prepares an environmental impact statement that fully analyzes the impacts of the commercial operations.
"It's a win-win for Wilderness and those who love the High Sierra" stated Gary Guenther, Wilderness Watch’s Eastern Sierra Representative and a former wilderness ranger in the John Muir Wilderness. " It sends a clear message to the Forest Service that while commercial packstock operations are appropriate, they must be done in a way that safeguards the Wilderness."

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed in April 2000 by the High Sierra Hikers Association, Wilderness Watch, and Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. The groups cited the Forest Service’s failure to protect the wilderness character of the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wildernesses from degradation arising from overuse by commercial pack operations.

While the district court ruled that the Forest Service failed to conduct proper environmental review before issuing permits to commercial operators, it erroneously held that the agency had the discretion under the Wilderness Act to allow damage to occur. The Appeals Court overturned that latter finding, stating: "The Forest Service’s decision to grant permits at their pre-existing levels in the face of documented damage resulting from overuse does not have rational validity….Given the Wilderness Act’s repeated emphasis of the administering agency’s responsibility to preserve and protect wilderness areas, this decision cannot be reconciled with the Forest Service’s statutory responsibility."

"Recreational use is one of the important uses of Wilderness," noted Andy Stahl of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. "However, this ruling makes it clear that the long-term preservation of an area’s wilderness character is paramount under the Wilderness Act. Where impacts from recreation or any other use damage the wilderness resource, it is the Forest Service’s job to act in the interest of the land."

" This decision sends a positive message to those wilderness rangers and volunteers who have faithfully documented the on-the-ground impacts of overuse," said Peter Browning of High Sierra Hikers Association. "Had the supervisors listened to their staff and addressed the problems this wouldn't have landed in court and the damage would have started healing long ago."

The case was remanded back to the district court to determine appropriate remedies that will correct past damage and prevent future harm.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are represented by Pete Frost of the Western Environmental Law Center and Julia Olson.

Press here to review the opinion in High Sierra Hikers Association v. Blackwell