Critics say Tule elk are the scapegoats of a plan to support ranching at Point Reyes National Seashore/NPS file
In a decision that could lead to litigation, the National Park Service is moving to preserve the ranching industry at Point Reyes National Seashore in California for two more decades. While the hefty decision document calls for maintaining the seashore's free-ranging Tule elk herds, it also allows for the killing of elk near livestock operations.
Shortly after the final environmental impact statement was released Friday, the Center for Biological Diversity promised that "we're going to do everything we can to stop it.”
Ranching at Point Reyes dates to the late 1850s with the creation of beef and dairy operations. When the national seashore was established in 1972, the Park Service was given the authority to purchase the ranches from willing sellers, and then allow the operations to continue under leases.
But in recent years the ranch operations have drawn harsh criticism for impacts to the landscape and to the seashore's Tule elk herds. Tule elk are the smallest elk subspecies in North American and a California native. They had been extirpated from Point Reyes by the 1860s, but in 1978 the Park Service brought some back at the direction of Congress.
Today there are three herds at the seashore, Drakes Beach, Limantour, and Tomales Point. The one that park staff defintely would place a population cap on is the Drakes Beach herd because of its straying onto agricultural lands. At the end of 2019 that herd numbered 138 individuals, and the FEIS set a 120-individual limit on the herd, a cap that would be achieved through lethal methods, unless a way is found to move the elk outside of the seashore.
Groups that oppose ranching at Point Reyes, including the Center for Biological Diversity, claim the cattle and dairy operations, comprising 28,000 of the park’s 71,000 acres, negatively affect the environment (water quality, methane emissions, erosion, fish habitat), the infrastructure (pavement degradation from milk trucks) and recreational opportunities at the seashore.
In its 250-page final environmental impact statement, the Park Service acknowledged that the operations adversely impact the environment, stating that continued grazing would impact watersheds, generate greenhouse gases, and generate dust. Offsetting those impacts was the desire to "maintain the Point Reyes Peninsula Dairy Ranches Historic District and Olema Valley Dairy Ranches Historic District cultural landscapes," which are included in the National Register.
Some conservation groups, while supportive of the Park Service's 2012 decision to remove Drakes Bay Oyster Company from Drakes Estero in the seashore and convert the vacated land into wilderness, have voiced support for continued sustainable farming at Point Reyes. They've pointed out that the ranching families were instrumental in the authorization of the seashore in 1962 and that turning away from that relationship would threaten the creation of public land elsewhere.
Bob McClure, whose daughters are the fifth generation of his family in the dairy business at Point Reyes, told Traveler in 2016 that efforts to push the livestock industry from the national seashore put nearly 130 years of history at risk.
“We are concerned, but we have not packed our suitcases yet,” he said at the time. “I believe the park will continue to do what it can to support agriculture in the park.”
To the Center for Biological Diversity, though, the FEIS is weak in its support for Tule elk and other native wildlife and natural resources.
“This is a disaster for wildlife and a stunning mismanagement of one of America’s most beautiful national parks,” the Center's Jeff Miller said Friday. “The Park Service is greenlighting the slaughter of native wildlife in Point Reyes. After the elk, the next likely victims will be birds, bobcats, foxes and coyotes. This plan is illegal and immoral, and we're going to do everything we can to stop it.”
The FEIS would also allow for chickens, sheep, and goats to be raised at the seashore.
The National Park Service's Pacific West regional director could give final approval to the document in mid-October.
Comments
You know; it's easy for a group to call itself whatever it likes, regardless of their actual intent, goals, or objectives. For example, you recently made what I consider to be a good decision to repost an excellent article entitled "Concerns Raised Over Efforts To Deny Growing Extinction Rates" by Mike Shanahan, although Jimmy Tobias takes an even straighter path to the truth in his bluntly worded article (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/23/republicans-arent-...). But, Shanahan, in his article, quotes a new report on extinction denial that "describes and debunks three types of extinction denial," with the second of the three types of extinction denial he discusses being "interpretive denial," a deceitful form of disinformation that acknowledges the loss of biodiversity but argues that economic growth will fix it.
Well, Bozeman's infamous rightwing Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) masquarades as a conservation group, while their actual intent, goal, and objective is to indoctrinate the gullible into believing that "free market environmentalism" will fix it. For the gang at PERC, "free market environmentalism" is their core defining "principle," although I use the term "principle" loosely in connection to this particular cabal of GOP scoundrels. That would seem to make them a textbook example of "interpretive deniers" of extinction threats; yet, they claim to be and disingenuously pose as a conservation group.
In fact, an example of the destructive potency of PERC's nefarious efforts can be seen in the hostile takeover and subsequent raiding of the net assets of the old nonprofit Yellowstone Association and the transformation of that group into Yellowstone Forever (YF) during the years of the GOP's Trump regime. The old Yellowstone Association had been operating on behalf of Yellowstone National Park since 1933, 87 years of funds, including the revenue from Yellowstone's visitor center bookstores, all going directly back to the park. The old Yellowstone Association had operated the Yellowstone Institute, since 1976, successfully running that internationally acclaimed center of conservation education for nearly 45 years. Only that was a problem for people only posing as conservationists, a problem that they had to correct. And, they did. Under PERC's influence and using the power of corrupt rightwing politicians, they took the old Yellowstone Association, a genuine conservation group with over $13 million in net assets; turned it into a group posing as a conservation group; essentially bankrupted that newly created front group; squandered, wasted, or just flat pilfered over $5 million in the process; closed the Yellowstone Institute, ending its conservation education efforts; and they did it all in less than four years. So, that's an example of the damage a group falsely calling itself a conservation group can do.
So, now we have this current article reporting "Some conservation groups... have voiced support for continued sustainable farming at Point Reyes" and "pointed out that the ranching families were instrumental in the authorization of the seashore in 1962." To be honest, I don't think Kurt reported this situation clearly.
First, I don't think groups that might be voicing support for the kind of shabby and exploitive ranching being done at Point Reyes and, by default, endorsing the kind of disgusting environmental and conservation damage being inflicted on Point Reyes and its Tule Elk are conservation groups at all. I think they're closer to the PERC gang and the PERC gang sure doesn't have anything to do with real conservation.
Second, the truth is the ranching families that were operating at Point Reyes in 1962 supported the creation of that park unit because 1) they were paid handsomely up front for their holdings and 2) the deal they struck allowed them to stay for a very generous additional length of time, which ended long ago. They made a very sweet deal that was in their favor. They cashed the checks and spent the money. But, now that they and the ne'er-do-wells now mostly only posing as their descendents have pretty much blown that windfall cash, they want to continue squatting on the property they have already sold once, to the American taxpayers.
You know; it actually reminds me of that disgusting situation at Caneel Bay in the Virgin Islands. So, in 2004, this overslicked Gary Engle hoodlum acquired control of the less than twenty years then remaining on the forty year RUE left by the late Laurance S. Rockefeller. The RUE is essentially a lease/rental agreement on the property at Caneel Bay that very clearly and very legally expires at the end of September, 2023, at which time the property reverts to the ownership and possession of the taxpayers through a previously agreed addition to Virgin Islands National Park. Engle acquired a sequential sublet of that agreement and was clearly informed of the terms, conditions, requirements, and expiration date of the lease when he accepted them in 2004.
The RUE, the lease, the rental agreement, required Engle to maintain the property through to the expiration date of the lease, which he has not done since 2017. Engle is, therefore, already guilty of multiple violations of the terms of his lease, his rental agreement, which begs the question of why this squatting renter at Caneel Bay hasn't already been evicted. Similarly, why haven't these conniving ranchers at Point Reyes, who have already been paid for their holdings and were supposed to have left long ago, been shown the door?
At Point Reyes, these alleged conservation groups that Kurt mentions are now apparently warning, let's be honest, they're now threatening the American taxpayers that "turning away" from this toxic relationship with this little clique of corrupt ranch trash at Point Reyes "would threaten the creation of public land elsewhere." How dare they threaten America in this way? Does this sound like a conservation group? But, even this has a disgustingly corrupt corollary at Caneel Bay. In 2019, Engle demanded, demanded, he demanded that the American taxpayers pay him $70 million and that the US Department of the Interior indemnify him from any liability for environmental damage at Caneel Bay. Engle went on to threaten, threaten, he threatened the Amercan taxpayers that, if he didn't get that $70 million extorted ransom, he would automatically have all "rights of ownership" to Caneel Bay and wouldn't leave. And, let's face it, that's pretty much where we are on this Point Reyes fiasco. Only, at Point Reyes, there's extremely rare wildlife caught in the middle and these "ranchers" don't care.
What I find strange about this FEIS is that it doesn't seem to indicate that there has been a decision. Alternative B is still the preferred alternative, as it was in the DEIS, but the others have not been eliminated. And at the page where you download the documents (FEIS and its appendices), it says:
"Upon conclusion of the EIS and decision-making process, one of the alternatives, or a combination of alternative elements will be selected for implementation and will update guidance for preserving natural and cultural resources, managing infrastructure and visitor use, and, as appropriate, directing specific strategies for managing lease/permits and tule elk for lands in the planning area."
What does that mean?
It's my understanding, Sarah, that through the planning process the park usually voices its support for a preferred alternative (in this case Alternative B), and the regional director makes the final choice.
I can't recall a situation where a regional director overrode a park's preference. So if the regional director approves the park's choice of Alternative B, then it would take effect and guide Point Reyes' management.
Thanks, Kurt.
Very interesting history you present, HP. I'd love to speak with you more about this issue (if you know who I am). I can be reached via email: jack@TreeSpiritProject-dot-com.
Excellent summary. Thank you.
When I was a child, my dad passed on advice that his dad had given him, and I still find it helpful. "Listen to what they say, but watch what they do." I hear a lot of people talking about climate change and the importance of preserving biodiversiy. But I see lots of fields grazed to dirt and invasive weeds. I see lots of skinny, sick cows. I see farm practices that harm native plants and animals and stink up the air with exhaust and dust. I've even seen cow poop floating in the bay while I've been kayaking. Now I see the NPS ignoring the will of people in favor of the cattle industry. Again. Private profit on public land. Again.
Restore Point Reyes has produced a short (<10 minute) film about the elk-Ranch situation. There's also a list of people to contact, if you'd like to let them know how you feel about this decision.
https://restoreptreyesseashore.org/elkfilm/
Cattle ranching at Point Reyes is not "sustainable." That word is used so loosely now that it has become greenwashing and meaningless. In fact this ranching is a filty operation that fills creeks with sewage, pollutes the ocean and endangers wildlife on land and sea. It is a violation of the NPS's mandate. The fact that the Park Service is now bending over to help these ranchers and even threatens to slaugher the elk herd on behalf of the cowboys makes me sick. The NPS is acting like the BLM or the Forest Service with their cozy relationship with ranchers who are ruining watersheds and destroying wildlife on our public lands elsewhere.
This is an urban park, close to a huge city. It draws international visitors. It has huge value as a refuge for urban people and a place for kids to learn about nature. Cattle ranching can take place elsewhere.
I hope that a new round of lawsuits will bring and end to these ranches and that the fences can come down and the public and elk can move freely on the cattle free lands. These are called "historic" ranches by the NPS. Let them be historic. Close them down.