Tule elk, Point Reyes National Seashore/NPS file
Op-Ed | Anti-Ranch Pressure Groups Misrepresent Facts At Point Reyes
By Sarah Rolph
George Wuerthner (Op-Ed | National Park Service Capitulated To Point Reyes Ranchers) strains credulity when he claims the National Park Service capitulated to Point Reyes ranchers; in fact, the NPS has just capitulated to him.
In a last-minute move that appears to be a violation of National Environmental Policy Act, NPS allowed Wuerthner’s anti-ranch pressure group to influence the content of the Final Eenvironmental Impact Statement after it had been finalized. The FEIS requires a 30-day public comment period before the Record of Decision is issued. That period had come and gone, yet before the RoD was issued, the document changed again, without any input from the public or from the Point Reyes agricultural community—but with private input from the anti-ranch lobbyists. That input has supposedly made the document more “balanced.” Apparently Wuerthner is annoyed that NPS didn’t capitulate enough—to him.
These anti-ranch groups habitually misrepresent the history of Point Reyes National Seashore, the ecological facts about Point Reyes, and the legal status of agriculture within the seashore. They pretend to have special knowledge of the situation when they show no understanding of even the most fundamental facts. To take just one example, it’s widely understood that grazing is necessary at Point Reyes to maintain open grasslands and prevent catastrophic wildfires. The EIS is clear on this point. The anti-ranch groups conveniently ignore this important issue.
Lately these pressure groups have been working to create the impression there is a sudden elk crisis in Point Reyes, when the truth is that the elk die-offs are the direct and expected result of the seashore’s hands-off elk management policy. As California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the state agency responsible for elk management in California, has noted, Point Reyes National Seashore is not big enough for a free-ranging herd of elk. There is no longer a top predator population at Point Reyes that can effectively control elk numbers. The result is an over-population of elk.
This was not just predictable, it was predicted—in the elk management plan that both the seashore and the activists ignore. The passive-management experiment failed: the elk management plan should have been updated years ago.
One of the professionally-spun lies that has gotten the most traction is the notion that the ranchers want to eliminate the elk. That is not true. All the ranchers want is for the elk to stop consuming the food that the ranchers pay for—including their organic hay—and to stop harming the animals they tend. All that is needed is a new fence to keep the Limantour herd in its wilderness, and some common-sense elk-management efforts in keeping with best practices for a re-introduced species. Birth control would be a good option. The only reason the activists emphasize lethal culling is to upset people as part of their emotional anti-ranch campaign.
If readers are interested in the history of Point Reyes, I highly recommend the definitive book on the topic, The Paradox of Preservation: Wilderness and Working Landscapes at Point Reyes by Dr. Laura Watt: https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520277083/the-paradox-of-preservation
For readers interested in a factual history of the re-introduction of elk in Point Reyes, and some background on the tule elk population in the rest of California, I recommend Dr. Watt’s published paper on the topic, “The Continuously Managed Wild: Tule Elk at Point Reyes National Seashore,” which is available for free online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286302438_The_Continuously_Managed_Wild_Tule_Elk_at_Point_Reyes_National_Seashore
Sarah Rolph is a longtime business writer and research analyst now working in narrative non-fiction. She is writing a book about the taking of Drakes Bay Oyster Farm.
Comments
Kenneth,
There is nothing grass-roots about Western Watersheds, RRI, or the Center for Biological Diversity. These are advocacy groups that work to change public policy, mostly using legal challenges. The mission is top-down. I'm sure some of the members of these groups understand and approve of the agendas being pursued, but many of them do not. They believe what they are told: that these groups are helping the environment, that cows are a threat, that elk are being slaughtered in Point Reyes as we speak; they even believed that an oyster farm was bad for the environment, when googling "oyster farm environment" yields hundreds of stories about the ecological benefits of oysters. I have read thousands of their comments, and believe me, many of these people are extremely gullible. They say things like this:
"The idea of removing the Elk and replacing them with cattle is horrible."
"It is such a shame to see the native species being slaughtered to make way for domestic livestock."
"I was appalled to read that you plan to slaughter Tule Elk in Point Reyes National Seashore. As you know, this is the only place they live, whereas ranchers have many places they can use for grazing."
(In fact, there are roughly 5,700 tule elk in the state, according to CA Fish & Wildlife.)
Those are all direct quotes from public comments on the ranch DEIS. There are thousands of comments like that. They are obviously the result of outreach campaigns from these groups. They echo their talking points, use the words from their press releases, and show up in the public comments right after their campaigns drop.
The orchestrated comments show no awareness of the NEPA process on which these people are supposedly commenting--because the anti-ranch mailings don't mention the process, and don't provide a link to the document about which the comment will be registered. These group members probably have no idea that their comments are in an official government NEPA database.
The demographics don't even make sense. I'm guessing you didn't follow the link I left yesterday to my story about the anti-ranch comment orchestration process; here's a snippet on the demographics of the highly suspicious anti-ranch scoping comments:
"When you think about it, there's very little chance that 3,000 people had something substantive to say about the scoping phase of a narrowly-focused planning effort in Point Reyes, California. The notion that these are all sincere public comments seems even more unlikely when one learns that 75 percent of these comments came from outside the state. And 13 percent were international! I guess you go to war with the mailing list you've got."
The members of these groups are likely well-intentioned. I think it is disgraceful that they are lied to and used as fodder in a political game they know nothing about.
Regarding the EIS, I definitely did not mean to create the impression that I think it's a worthwhile document. It is a fabric of lies, and stacks the deck against the ranchers. I have published quite a bit about this:
https://www.ptreyeslight.com/article/eight-astonishing-things-you-might-...
https://www.marinij.com/2019/09/20/marin-voice-consider-the-benefits-of-...
https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2019/09/op-ed-support-working-land...
My point in citing the document was this: if even the EIS, in its analysis of the potential cessation of ranching, acknowledges that it would be a bad idea because of the risk of major, intense wildfires, it's likely true. You can see in the passage I cited that they are trying to minimize it, but the wildfire threat is a plain fact.
Ms Rolph,
Now that your comments have come to focus on the credibility/veracity of Mr. Bouley's and what you call the anti-ranching side's comments, wouldn't it be only fair to examine the credibilty/veracity of some of your own past pronouncements?
I seem to remember that, not that long ago, you were claiming, in an apparent bid to stir up the emotions of uneducated lovers of livestock, that the Tule elk at Point Reyes had to be controlled because they mated with the cows and the cows then had to be destroyed. This claim was so sophomorically baseless and untrue that either you were/are outrageously uninformed about basic biology, specifically about interactions between animal species and especially between wildlife and livestock, or that you actually did/do know better and were just unethically and deceitfully spreading misinformation/disinformation to further your obsessions.
Either way, whether driven by a woefully deficient educational background or a missing moral compass and sense of ethics, that claim alone undermined your own credibility/veracity on this topic and rendered your opinions and assertions about the wildlife and livestock situation at Point Reyes effectively worthless. In fact, that claim indicated that your understanding of environmental and conservation issues is so deficient and so far off the spectrum of credible knowledge of these topics that it also indicates that anything else you might have to say or publish regarding oyster farming, Drakes Bay, or Point Reyes is quite probably nothing more than the skewed political rhetoric and propaganda that your comments about elk and livestock seem to be.
Sarah, I am very familiar with these groups. CBD alone has 1.7 million supporting members. And who said grass roots organizations don't try to change public policy?
I understand you are repeating your position that thousands of your fellow citizens are gullible, which is not very convincing, especially in context coming from someone so dedicated to a dying and polluting industry as yourself.
Let's look at your list of alleged mistruths:
"That these groups are helping the environment." Absolutely, 100% true. More so if they succeed in ridding our national park of this subsidized blight.
"That cows are a threat." Cows are a threat. "Cut methane emissions to avert global temperature rise, UN-backed study urges." https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091402
"That elk are being slaughtered in Point Reyes as we speak." I suppose it's the "as we speak" part you object to. Fair point, although they are dying of starvation in large numbers behand the ranchers' elk fence." But of course, declared plan would result in the culling of scores of elk. (To be more specific, it would have at the time of the comment period; by now, so many have died miserable deaths as to dip below the now-increased arbitrary management number of 140. Regardless, number 141 thru x is to be killed annually.
"They even believed that an oyster farm was bad for the environment..." Absolutely true. "...when googling "oyster farm environment" yields hundreds of stories about the ecological benefits of oysters." The internet can be used to support all kinds of claims. But the multimillion-dollar taxpayer funded clean-up, including removing tons of plastic and toxic pressure treated lumber from sensitive habitat, contradicts you.
I have read as many or perhaps more of "their" comments as you, and I saw consistently informed, passionate, and outraged expressions.
I read your article and I have read you before on this topic. Here is another concrete example of your failed attempts to dismiss the public's sentiment regarding Point Reyes: pointing to the geographically dispersed demographics as not making sense indicates that you fail to take into account that PRNS is a *national* park and that the climate and extinction crises are global. It doesn't *matter* where commenters live - they have every right to express themselves and not be insulted by industry mouthpieces. Calling it a "narrowly-focused planning effort" is a deflection. How national parks are managed matters, and is the business of the public, not the industries trying to exploit them.
Regarding your last summation of the EIS, it does not say that the cessation of ranching is a bad idea. You may have misspoken; that is untrue. It says, in fact, it would be a GOOD idea for the air, water, soil, vegetation (mostly, this is mixed), and wildlife. It also says wildlife danger, if not mitigated, *might* go up. I'm glad you admit you don't give the EIS any credit ("a fabric of lies".) I suggest then, that you stop cherry picking from it, to avoid giving the impression that you are trying to fool your readership. I see nothing in your resume that leads me to believe you are a reliable filter regarding what is correct and what is not in the EIS.
Sarah Rolph is hilarious! Her claim that grazing by cattle is superior to that by elk is preposterous. All one has to do is see, with their own eyes, the damage the cows do, and compare it to the elk preserve. Elk do not eat plants down to the nub, they wander when not penned in. It's the cattle ranches that are bare, dead ground with little plant life beyond invasive thistles and weeds. Not surprising when you compare both the number and size of all the cows to the elk.
And since when are citizens that want their park back from the ranchers who reneged on the terms of the land sale "pressure groups"? Jared Huffman likes to tell the same lie that the overwhelming public response against continued ranching in our seashore was the result of some organized campaiugn. Not true. The comments to the EIS were from individual people who took it upon themselves to respond to the Park Service's call for comments. When the California Coastal Commission reviewed the EIS and called for comments, the extreme majority of the approximately 50,000 comments again stated opposition to continued ranching. There were some group letters submitted, one signed by over 100 environmental organizations, but why would someone who signed in support of another position letter not have their opinion count? Probably because someone has a financial interest in doing so.
The adopted management plan does indeed allow for row crops, but with the slight proviso that they have to go through another layer of review before being approved.
Ms. Rolph likes to cite Dr. Laura Watt as an expert on the tule elk. Here in the North Bay, she's know as something of a shill for the animal agricultural industry.