Mr. Craig Axtell
Superintendent
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks
47050 Generals Highway
Three Rivers, CA 93271-9651

Dear Mr. Axtell,

I found your letter to me dated July 14, 2006, extremely offensive and insensitive. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are quite possibly the most mismanaged parks in the entire national park system and this is borne out by the incredible and reprehensible misstatements of the law in your letter to me.

You said that "Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, section 2.15 (a)(1) allows for the presence of dogs in the Parks as long as they are physically restrained and under control at all times." Actually 36 CFR 2.15 states:
(a) The following are prohibited:
(2)Failing to crate, cage, restrain, on a leash which shall not exceed six feet in length, or otherwise physically confine a pet at all times.

You misstated the rule and stated it in a positive way even though it is a prohibition, so that it would support your untenable conclusions but I think we can agree that dogs are allowed inside the park. That is irrelevant. The issue is whether dogs are allowed on a TRAIL. Title 36 CFR, Part 7, section 7.8 (a) states: "Dogs and cats are prohibited on any park land or trail except within a quarter mile of developed areas which are accessible by a designated public automobile road"

Developed areas means campgrounds and picnic areas - areas that are traditionally considered developed; it does not mean trails as trails are specifically excluded by the statute you are quoting (or misquoting as the case may be) and it especially does not mean one of our national park's premier attractions - a 2700 year old tree that just so happens to be the largest living thing. Section 7.8 (a) was never intended to allow dogs in these special places. Just because you paved the trail to the General Sherman Tree does not make it a developed area and does not mean it is not a trail; it makes it a paved TRAIL. As you well know, dogs are not allowed on any park TRAIL. See above. You actually state in your letter that the trail is 1/2 mile long while the rule you quote only permits dogs within a quarter mile of the parking lot. Actually I believe the trail is 3/4 of a mile because I have walked it twice but I will find out by measuring it. The park is notoriously inaccurate on trail distances. The issue is whether dogs should be allowed near a 2700 year old tree accessed by a trail. No reasonable person would call this anything but a trail and you yourself called it a TRAIL in your letter. Indeed it is entitled the General Sherman TRAIL. The whole point of spending my tax dollars on this new TRAIL was to save these precious trees from the depredations of development. As I am sure you are aware, since you are ostensibly the superintendent whose job it is to protect this precious park, the entire project was undertaken in order to remove the parking lot which was too close to the General Sherman Tree and other giant sequoias and return this area to a more natural setting. How can it be more natural if you are misconstruing a statute in order to allow domesticated pets on it? Your interpretation of Section 7.8(a) is unprecedented in national park history and shows a deep misunderstanding of both the park's and your mission. Your job is to protect and preserve for future generations. Misinterpreting a statute and twisting its plain language in order to cater to the selfish needs of dog owners is both destructive and contrary to your stated mission and the very existence of your job.

You state in your letter that there are pet closures on other trails in the park but all you could think of were the Congress Trail (which ironically is closer to the parking lot than General Sherman) and Tokopah Falls (which ironically is right next to a large campground and parking lot!) when in fact dogs are not allowed on any park TRAIL. This would include Mist Falls, Bubbs Creek, Copper Creek, Hotel Creek, Don Cecil Trail, Grant Grove, North Loop, Big Trees Trail, Hazelwood Nature Trail, Moro Rock, and on and on. Moro Rock now there is a good example. It is paved. Are you trying to say that dogs are allowed on Moro Rock" I mean after all it is developed, it is 1/2 mile, and it is paved. If those are your criteria, and let me be emphatic here that is not the intent of this law and I have never heard of a superintendent of a national treasure interpreting this law in such a reckless manner, then dogs would be crawling all over TRAILS in all our parks. Dogs are already allowed on national forest trails. There is no need for you to be misstating a statute that has been traditionally interpreted to only allow dogs in national parks in parking lots, campgrounds, and picnic areas to now include them in and around our precious treasures.

I found your letter incredibly insensitive not only to your very mission but to me personally. I brought up a valid complaint about off leash dogs on the General Sherman TRAIL and your letter didn"t even address or allay in any way my concerns. Instead you crazily state that you will instruct the park paper to misstate a federal statute. Your letter said nothing about the danger of domestic pets interacting with bears, harassing park animals, or the fact that your new policy will encourage off leash dogs. Indeed I never saw a dog around the Sherman Tree until your new policy was instituted and already I have seen two off leash dogs on the Sherman Trail. What do you intend to do to stop off leash dogs which you are actually encouraging by allowing them on this trail?

You conclude your letter by stating that visitor input is critical to the management of the parks. I am glad to hear that because this visitor finds this park in need of some better management. I am considering what action I can take against you if you continue to try to institute this clear violation of a federal regulation and endanger my life and the life of park animals, wildlife, and plants. Dogs are an incredibly destructive force and it has been proven again and again in scientific studies. Moreover, dogs are domesticated pets that have no business in a nature area such as Sequoia National Park. They dig up plants, they harass wild animals, they defecate on places where people want to walk, and they disturb the serenity of those people who simply don't like dogs. I hope you will reconsider your ill-advised decision to ignore the plain clear meaning of a federal statute and that you will put up a sign immediately at the Trailhead to the General Sherman Trail specifically prohibiting dogs. Dogs have no business rambling around a giant gorgeous old tree in a giant gorgeous old tree grove or in any natural area. What makes you think that it is necessary to allow dogs around this grand tree? Don't dog owners already have enough places where their domesticated pets can roam freely without your letting them intrude on other park visitors' experience? Contrary to your outrageous statement, the presence of pets is inconsistent with any natural area, it is inconsistent with the very reason for Sequoia National park's existence - to preserve the giant trees, and it is certainly inconsistent with your duty to protect the parks from depredations of all sorts.

Your letter ends with this statement, "Take Pride in America." How can I take pride in America when people like you who are supposed to be protecting it are destroying it? Why don't you take some pride in your job? Pets have no business on the General Sherman Trail. It is a trail and the presence of pets is prohibited by the Code of Federal Regulations on park trails. I have never heard of a park superintendent ignoring a federal statute like that. It is unconscionable. If this situation is not corrected I am going to have to explore what legal options are available.

Sincerely,

Michelle Brodie