Point Reyes National Seashore staff next month are expected to release a draft management plan that addresses ranching inside the seashore/NPS file
Anticipation is building in advance of the release of a draft management plan for ranching and dairy operations at Point Reyes National Seashore, with opponents to the industries working to build support for the seashore's Tule elk herd.
At stake are not only the native elk that roam the landscape, but the generations-old livelihood of ranching families, as well as the health of native vegetation at the national seashore on the California coast that could be impacted. Up for consideration in the Draft General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement are options ranging from continued ranching unchanged to removing cattle from the seashore.
Once the draft is released next month, the public will have 45 days to comment on the way ranching and dairy operations and Tule elk at the national seashore should be managed going forward.
Ranching within the Point Reyes peninsula dates to the mid-1800s. Following the establishment of Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the National Park Service purchased the land from ranching families, who in many cases continued to ranch under time-limited reservations of use and occupancy. As the reservations expired, the Park Service continued to authorize ranching and dairying with agricultural lease/special use permits, as is allowed in the two parks’ legislation. Currently, 24 ranching operations are authorized for beef and dairy ranching under lease/permits, which include terms and conditions for the protection of natural and cultural resources.
In February 2016, litigation was brought against the Park Service related to an ongoing ranch planning process and the use of lands in the planning area for ranching and dairying. The plaintiffs and the Park Service, together with the ranchers and the County of Marin, entered into settlement negotiations. The court approved a multi-party Settlement Agreement on July 14, 2017. Per the agreement, the Park Service agreed that in lieu of a Ranch Comprehensive Management Plan, it would prepare a GMP Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement addressing the management of the lands currently leased for ranching in Point Reyes and the north district of Golden Gate.
According to Restore Point Reyes Seashore, a group that advocates for natural conditions at the seashore, cattle at the seashore outnumber Tule elk by nearly 10 to 1.
"The majority of Tule elk are confined to Tomales Point behind an 8-foot fence to prevent them from eating grass that’s leased to the ranchers. Half the confined elk herd—more than 200 animals—died during the recent drought for lack of water and nutritious forage," the group said. "But there's a free-roaming herd of Tule elk herd near Drake's Beach, adjacent to parklands grazed by cattle. Ranchers complain that these elk compete with their cows for grass. The NPS’s proposed remedies include killing, fencing, and removing the elk. Its current approach is daily hazing to run the elk off the leased range."
Some members of Congress want to legislate a permanent ranching industry at Point Reyes. Last year legislation sponsored by Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat, called for "the Secretary of the Interior to manage the Point Reyes National Seashore in the State of California consistently with Congress’ long-standing intent to continue to authorize working dairies and ranches on agricultural property as part of the seashore’s unique historic, cultural, scenic and natural values..."
The bill would give cattle the edge over the native elk population at the national seashore.
"In areas of agricultural property where Tule elk present conflicts with working ranches or dairies, the Secretary shall manage the Tule elk for separation from the working ranches or dairies," it read. Further, the bill called for tribes to work with Interior to manage the elk population, either by relocating elk to tribal lands or hunting them "on a subsistence or ceremonial basis."
While the legislation didn't survive the last Congress, the congressman has indicated he will reintroduce the measure if needed to protect the ranching industry at the national seashore.
Comments
I've been watching this comment string for a while now, reluctant to step in it for fear of tracking it into the house; however, I feel compelled at this point. I have no problems eating meat, oysters, cheese, ice cream, and so forth. And, I have substantial knowledge and long firsthand experience with cattle, selecting them, breeding them, ranching them, and even making them into meat. I am also all too familiar with ranchers and dairy operators and their problems. But, I'm also familiar with genetics and the problems that arise when gene pools get depleted. Much has been said, in the article and the subsequent comments. I think it's time to step back and take a broader look.
A lot of numbers get used to describe the status of wildlife species, either currently or historically. I would never vouch for the exact accuracy of any such numbers; wild animals are just too hard to count precisely; but, in general, the numbers paint a clear and reliable picture. There were originally at least six, probably at least eight, elk species or subspecies in North America. All but four are now extinct; the others are wildlife varieties that have been lost forever. Of the remaining elk, Tule Elk are the smallest, have relatively complex antlers, are adapted to warmer coastal environments, are generally considered the most unique, and, unfortunately, are probably also the rarest. Out of a population estimated from between half and three quarters of a million prior to European colonization, no more than a few dozen survived by the end of the nineteenth century. In notional terms, that represents an evolutionarily recent reduction in their gene pool of up to twenty thousand to one. Yes, current estimates are that as many as five thousand Tule Elk exist today; however, today's five thousand elk are the recent descendants of a gene pool of no more than a few dozen.
What does that mean? Let's put it in perspective. Again in notional terms, imagine that the roughly three hundred million Americans in our nation gene pool today suffered a twenty thousand to one gene pool reduction like the one suffered by Tule Elk and only fifteen thousand Americans survived to reconstitute our population. Out of all of our vibrant and thriving cities, fifteen thousand is the population of only one very small town. Would they be our best or would they be among our worst? After such a horrific calamity, our future is much more likely to be dystopian than utopian. Now, go back and consider all the traits, capabilities, and survival skills Tule Elk may have lost. Remember also that the state of the science on predicting if, when, and where inbreeding effects are going to appear is nowhere near mature or reliable.
The article correctly points out that most of the elk at Point Reyes are fenced onto the Tomales Point area, trapped there so they can't eat grass "leased" to ranchers; that more than two hundred of these rare elk recently died because they were trapped there, without water and forage; and that, as if the current situation is not disgusting enough already, the National Park Service is now proposing to kill more of these rare elk in other areas of the "parklands" because "ranchers complain" that these remnant specimens of Tule Elk are competing with their cattle for grass when "cattle at the seashore outnumber Tule elk by nearly 10 to 1" already. I ranched for decades; I know what ranching is all about; I also know the difference between marriage and rape; and it seems obvious that this is a case of pretentious ignorance, rampant greed, and spoiled selfishness run amok. At this point, we need these elk more than we need ranchers who are so unethical as to want to continue, much less escalate, this debacle and I would not disagree with a threatened listing for this species.
As far as the comments on this article, Savory was debunked long ago. The range looks good to people who don't know what they're looking at; but, the plant communities are all skewed toward faster regenerators and against the complete community that should be there. On this type of coastal range, those approaches would favor undesirable non-native vegetation that is already posing problems at the expense of native vegetation and probably make matters even worse. And, anyone who thinks elk are impregnating cattle has a truly ridiculous, sophomoric, and medieval understanding of biology; can't reliably be given any credence on any topic beyond a grade school level; and certainly has no credibility on this topic, although I can believe some rancher told her that.
The law may now allow for indefinite renewals, but my reply was pointing out that PRNS was not "created knowing there would be cattle grazing indefinitely. "
If that had been the case, Rep. Huffman would not have felt the need last year to sneak into unrelated funding legislation a provision stating that is the intent of Congress for grazing to continue at PRNS. This was precisely the kind of measure that we justifiably criticize anti-environmental legislators for frequently doing.
I get that. I was incorrect that it was originally in the legislation, but there were a lot of things in the original legislation that were modified, including wilderness and potential wilderness status. I believe it was done as 50 year terms, but in 1980 that was modified to 25 year terms or a life estate. But this was in 1980, so it's not as if the indefinite renewals just snuck up on anyone in the past decade. The amendments became integral parts of the law. I don't recall there being anything controversial about it until recently when Neubacher started awarding 10 year terms and Salazar suggested that it should be 20 years.
It's true that I don't know much about elk. It sounds like I'm wrong about the impregnation detail. Thank you for pointing this out so that I can correct my knowledge. I'm working to trace the source of the error.
I do know quite a bit about Point Reyes.
I disagree with Dan Blake that ranching doesn't fit into the three categories mentioned in the overall purpose of the Seashore ("public recreation, benefit, and inspiration"). It fits under public benefit.
I also disagree with Blake's assertion that the Huffman legislation somehow proves that the Seashore wasn't created with the intent to retain grazing. Huffman's proposed legislation underlines the sad fact that Seashore officials have been unwilling to abide by the enabling legislation, or even by their own planning efforts. (The 1998 elk management plan, for example, which includes a formal Environmental Assessment, making it the rule of law, has not been followed; Seashore personnel have said it no longer applies. They are making up the rules as they go along.)
There is abundant evidence that the Seashore was indeed created with the understanding that ranching would remain indefinitely, starting with the mention in the enabling legislation of retained rights for heirs. It's very easy to get lost in the details; for those who want the full story I recommend Laura Watt's book about the management of Point Reyes National Seashore, The Paradox of Preservation.
In the documents from over the years that discuss ranching, it's quite clear that it has always been considered an important part of the Seashore. For example, the 1990 Range Management Guidelines document, which I read recently because it is referred to in the EIS and in some of the supporting documents, begins with the words:
"As illustrated below, the National Park Service within Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate Recreational Area have been given an overall mandate to provide recreational opportunities, protect open space, preserve cultural and natural resources, and maintain agricultural activities in defined pastoral zones. It is the intent of the National Park Service to manage the pastoral zones of both Parks in a manner that will preserve park resources and recreational opportunities to the fullest extent, while honoring the legislative mandate or charge to also continue agricultural activities."
Then- Interior Secretary Salazar's November 29, 2012 decision memo on DBOC directing the Seashore to provide 20-year permits to the ranches says:
"Finally, the Department of the Interior and the NPS support the continued presence of dairy and beef ranching operations in Point Reyes' pastoral zone. I recognize that ranching has a long and important history on the Point Reyes peninsula, which began after centuries old Coast Miwok traditions were replaced by Spanish mission culture at the beginning of the 19th century. Long-term preservation of ranching was a central concern of local interests and members of Congress as they considered legislation to establish the Point Reyes National Seashore in the 1950s and early 1960s. In establishing the pastoral zone (Point Reyes enabling legislation PL 87-657, Section 4) Congress limited the Government's power of eminent domain and recognized "the value to the Government and the public of continuation of ranching activities, as presently practiced, in preserving the beauty of the area." (House Report No. 1628 at pages 2503-04.) Congress amended the Point Reyes enabling legislation to authorize the NPS to lease agricultural property that had been used for ranching or dairying purposes. (Section 318, Public Law 95-625, 92 Stat. 3487, 1978.) The House Report explained that "the use of agricultural lease-backs is encouraged to maintain this compatible activity, and the Secretary is encouraged to utilize this authority to the fullest extent possible. (House Report 95-1165, page 344.)
Accordingly, I direct that the Superintendent work with the operators of the dairy and cattle ranchers in the pastoral zone to reaffirm my intention that, consistent with applicable laws and planning practices, recognition of the role of ranching be maintained and to pursue extending permits to 20-year terms to the dairy and cattle ranches within that pastoral zone. In addition, the values of multi-generational ranching and farming at Point Reyes should be considered in future planning efforts. These working ranches are a vibrant and compatible part of Point Reyes National Seashore, and both now and in the future represent an important contribution to the Point Reyes' superlative natural and cultural resources."
That directive should have ended the matter. Then- Regional Director, Pacific West Region Jarvis issued the delegation of authority to that end on January 31, 2013. On that same day, the Seashore Superintendent forwarded the Jarvis memo to the ranchers with a letter saying NPS was committed to moving quickly on this and that they were currently working out the details. That was five and a half years ago and the Seashore has been stalling and obfuscating ever since then. Now they are trying to wriggle out of their obligations by rewriting the purpose of the Seashore with the current ranch EIS.
The elk at Point Reyes are being tragically mismanaged. The deaths of the elk in the Tomales Point elk reserve have nothing to do with the ranching or the fence, and everything to do with the lack of population control. When elk roamed in Point Reyes naturally, so did grizzly bears, black bears, and pronghorns. It's hard to understand why the Seashore imagined they could reintroduce a species that had been gone for over 150 years and just expect it to manage on its own as a wild animal. Without any predators, population control is necessary. A contraception project was reportedly piloted but abandoned.
Despite its failure to successfully manage the Tomales Point herd, the Seashore decided to introduce a free-ranging herd in 1998. To do so, it published an elk management plan that discusses the necessary population control and the necessity of keeping elk out of the pastoral zone, and of providing mitigation measures in the event of elk depredations on ranches. Those promises have not been kept. The ranchers have been told that the 1998 elk plan no longer applies. How they figure that, nobody knows; legally, it is still the controlling document.
That free-ranging herd that was created in the Limantour wilderness area has been allowed to overpopulate and is now grazing on ranches near there, and the Seashore refuses to take any meaningful action.
The free-ranging herd now has an offshoot in the pastoral zone that the Seashore is calling the Drakes Beach herd. (CA Fish & Wildlife considers it all one herd.) These elk are illegally being allowed to feast on privately managed agricultural resources. It is this herd that the Seashore is considering managing. The Seashore's preferred alternative in the current EIS would limit the population of this herd to 120 elk, out of a current estimate of 124 animals. This is a very minimal management effort, and under the preferred alternative, lethal removal would be used only for the Seashore's population control measures, not for eliminating elk depredations on ranches; for that, it proposes the current ineffectual hazing, along with elk-friendly fences.
The elk are being used as a political pawn rather than being managed properly. Those who care about this animal should demand that the Seashore take its wildlife management responsibilities seriously.