• Home
• About Us
  • Our History
  • Accomplishments
  • Chapters
  • Board of Directors
  • Staff
  • Contact Us
  • Links
• Our Programs
  • Overview
  • Defending Wilderness
  • Education & Empowerment
  • Sustaining Wilderness Traditions
  • Voices for Public Lands
• Wild Issues
• Wild Library
  • Overview
  • Publications
    • Newsletters
    • Wilderness Guardian
    • Policy Guide
    • Policy Papers
    • Essays
  • Wilderness Act
  • Wild & Scenic Rivers
• Support Us

Court Rules that Plan to Increase Commercial Packstock Operations in Sierra Wilderness is Illegal

SAN FRANCISCO – On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that a plan adopted by the U.S. Forest Service in 2005 to allow substantial growth in commercial packstock operations in two High Sierra wilderness areas was unlawful, citing the agency’s failure to protect and restore resources damaged by these 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. “The Inyo and Sierra national forests have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to protect the John Muir and Ansel Adams wildernesses from excessive use by commercial packtrains. The 2005 Plan allowed substantial increases in use both in clients and stock numbers that would have resulted in continued serious degradation. This decision should help to preserve these areas for the benefit of both present and future generations.”

In her October 30 ruling, Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte found that the Forest Service’s plan “allows for significantly increased commercial packstock use in some parts of the wilderness, including areas previously recognized by the Forest Service as already heavily damaged from excessive stock use.”

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit originally filed in April 2000 by the High Sierra Hikers Association, Wilderness Watch, and Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. It charged that the Forest Service was failing to properly regulate commercial packstock businesses in the John Muir and Ansel Adams wildernesses. These areas, which are highly popular for backcountry recreation, contain some of the most spectacular features of the High Sierra, including Mount Whitney, the Minarets, and hundreds of high country lakes, streams and meadows. The areas also contain threatened and endangered species that exist nowhere else on Earth, such as the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep, the Yosemite toad, and others.

In 2001, after reviewing the evidence and holding hearings, Judge Laporte ruled that the commercial packstock operations had seriously harmed portions of the wildernesses. She concluded that the Forest Service had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The agency failed to properly analyze and disclose the environmental harm caused by commercial packstock before reissuing permits to the commercial operators. She then ordered the Forest Service to prepare an “environmental impact statement” to study the impacts of commercial stock operations. This order led to the highly controversial 2005 plan.

In 2004, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld Laporte’s 2001 order regarding the NEPA violations. In addition, the appeals court added significant new findings: the Forest Service had also violated the Wilderness Act by failing to preserve and restore wilderness resources that have been harmed by the commercial enterprises. The Court of Appeals stated “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.” The appeals court then returned the case to Judge Laporte with instructions to ensure the agency placed reasonable limits on the commercial enterprises and to remedy the documented harm caused by the commercial packstock operations over the years.

In the most recent (October 30) ruling, Judge Laporte found that it was “irrational” for the Forest Service to approve a new plan that allows large increases in the commercial operations. She also faulted the plan for lacking provisions to mitigate the harm that would be caused by the increased use or to restore areas previously damaged by past commercial packstock operations. In addition the judge ruled that several other elements of the 2005 plan were illegal because they violated the NEPA, the Wilderness Act, or both. Other provisions in the 2005 plan that were ruled illegal included special privileges granted to commercial operators that allowed them to have campfires in areas where the general public cannot, and provisions that allowed commercial packstock to continue grazing in areas with badly eroded meadows, degraded streams, and in sensitive habitat for the imperiled Yosemite toad. “The Forest Service failed to take a hard look at water quality issues in the FEIS and allowed further degradation through increased grazing in already impacted areas in violation of the Wilderness Act,” Judge Laporte ruled

“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.”

Michael Painter, Coordinator of Californians for Western Wilderness, a plaintiff that joined the 2005 case, said: “At a time when more and more public functions are being outsourced, commercialized, and even privatized, this case is a good reminder that agencies have the duty to protect and restore the resources entrusted to their care. This is the only way that the American people can truly benefit from the lands that are theirs by birthright.”

Judge Laporte will hold additional hearings with both sides in the coming months to determine appropriate remedies to correct past damage and prevent future harm.

The plaintiffs are represented by Pete Frost of the Western Environmental Law Center and Julia Olson of Wild Earth Advocates.

The most recent court opinion can be viewed by clicking here. Previous court decisions from 2004 and 2001, can be viewed at the website of the nonprofit High Sierra Hikers Association: www.highsierrahikers.org/resources_index.html.

Back to Top