PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 442.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Sep 15, 2014
Emigrant Wilderness Historical Use Preservation Act - (Sec. 3) Requires the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to ensure that all pack and saddle stock uses within the Emigrant Wilderness of Stanislaus National Forest in California are recognized as appropriate wilderness activities, including the effect on soil, water, and vegetation. Prohibits any action from being taken to limit or exclude pack and saddle stock without an environmental analysis with a finding that the actions are necessary to preserve the wilderness character of the area to that which existed at the time of the designation.
States that historical uses and activities, including commercial outfitting and guiding, camping, pack stock grazing; and associated campfires, tent locations, and social trails are traditional uses. Requires signs of use created by these activities to be considered substantially unnoticeable and acceptable as long as they do not exceed the level present at the time of the designation. Requires the USDA to take actions to ensure that these levels are not exceeded.
Direct the USDA to complete an updated wilderness plan to preserve pack and saddle stock use and all legally acceptable recreational uses within the area. Specifies requirements for the plan.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the USDA to continue to authorize commercial pack and saddle stock services and issue authorizations to provide commercial services for commercial stock operations within the area at historic levels. Requires the USDA to specify levels of use, user days, and activities by commercial outfitters and guides.
People & committees
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-4] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 442.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-595.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 113-595.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3606 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3606 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3606 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3606 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.