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
Another classic disinformation piece from anti-public lands operative Sarah Rolph.
Cattle grazing at Point Reyes does not, and will not ever prevent "catastrophic wildfires." Aside from the fact that wildlfire is a natural part of the Point Reyes ecosystem, there is no evidence grazing has any effect in reducing fuels. It is the fire-dependent pine forests at Point Reyes that burn, not the grasslands.
Rolph flips reality on its head by claiming that conservation advocates had special access to alter the management plan. In fact, it was the ranchers who had special access, including dozens of private meetings with park staff, ability to provide hidden comments on regulatory agency enviromental reviews, and they were rewarded with a plan that is the ranchers' personal wish list for maximizing their private profits and activities on the public's land.
More fake news about elk. Point Reyes is in fact the one place that could support a larger population of tule elk than anywhere else in the world, if only the ranchers hadn't forced the Park Service to fence them in, haze them out of prime grasslands, and shoot them so that cows can eat the publicly subsidized grass. No, the state wildlife agency did not say that that Point Reyes is not big enough for a free-ranging herd of elk. Complete fabrication. In fact, the park supports two free-ranging elk herds, and could support more if the welfare cows were removed. There is no overpopulation of elk. The herds are way under the carrying capacity, as determined by the park's elk management plan. There is no ecological reason for elk population control - the only reason is to fatten private ranchers' wallets. The massvie elk die offs that have occurred and are occuring are because of anti-elk, pro-cow policy, and a fence that artificially traps the Tomales elk herd on a small peninsula without adequate water and forage. That fence was put there for the private ranchers.
The ranchers do want to eliminate the elk - from our public lands! Their formal public comments on the plan called for removal of elk from the park, extermination, and fencing to keep elk from being able to move.
More propaganda and misinformation from an entitled interest group that enjoys subsidized grazing leases, rent, and infrastructure paid for by the taxpayers, so they can trash our National Park and kill our wildlife.
You forgot to mention that the elk were at Point Reyes for hundreds of thousands of years before the cattle and that ranchers and market hunters extirpated the elk in the late 1800s for the reasons you mention above (the ranchers didn't want the elk eating forage that belonged to the ranchers). You forgot to mention that on every other National Park unit the wild animals come first and if there is room then perhaps a few cattle are allowed. Not at Point Reyes where the cattle come first. Shame.
Ah, more lipstick on the pig... If you smear enough lipstick on a pig and smear it on thick enough, it can make it harder for some folks to recognize that the pig is still down under there. But, the scent of the pen and the slop the pig the feeds on will eventually still give it away.
You can wave your arms around in the air, point this way and that, yelling "squirrel" the whole time. You can show folks some organic hay and try to disguise the odor with some nice ripe cheese. You can try to shine the pig up by smearing it with nice fresh butter. You can even go behind the scenes and dress up the pig in some kind of magic underwear to try to shield it from the truth.
You can do everything you can think up to try to distract folks from recognizing that the pig is still there. But ultimately, none of those efforts will ever make the pig anything other than pork, nothing more than just greased up pork. And, excessively greasy pork eventually just tends to be hard to digest.
Speaking of things that are hard to swallow, this situation at Point Reyes has pretty much always been an indigestible national scandal. The National Park Service should really be ashamed of being a party to it. Then again, the National Park Service should be ashamed of a lot of things at this point.
I wouldn't expect Jeff Miller to agree with my perspective, since he is a staff member at the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the anti-ranch pressure groups working against agriculture in Point Reyes.
Regarding the issue of wildfires, here is what the Seashore says about that in the ranch EIS:
"Over the long term, however, the cessation of ranching may not result in overall beneficial impacts, especially in grasslands, which constitute 48% of the planning area. Rates of shrub encroachment into grasslands, invasive perennial grasses, vegetative fuels (both herbaceous and woody), and the consequent risk of large, intense wildfires are all likely to increase, resulting in adverse impacts on vegetation."
Regarding the assertion that the ranchers want to eliminate the elk, I challenge Miller to provide some evidence. None of the letters I read from ranchers, or from the Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association, resemble Miller's characterization.
There is an excelloent -- and amazingly polite -- letter from the Spaletta family about the elk depredations on their ranch, which is ground zero for the so-called Drakes Beach Herd. Even the Spalettas say: "Since the Drakes Beach Elk Herd first appeared, we have never requested the NPS to cull the elk. We have always requested the elk to be relocated to protect not only our farm, but our neighbors. The fences are necessary to keep the cattle & public safe; they help prevent erosion and encourage a healthy ecosystem."
Whoa, look at that! It's a squirrel and what looks like even more lipstick. Gosh, I don't know about the rest of you folks; but, I got plum distracted there. Well, so, where was I? Oh yeah, the waste, fraud, and abuse associated with the Point Reyes debacle...
Sara Rolph, the Park service is legally free, under NEPA, to make modifications between the FEIS and the ROD, just the same way they are free to ignore the overwhelming public opposition to their "preferred" plan, which is exactly what they did. That you think the "Point Reyes agricultural community" deserves special consideration as to land management of a national park, which belongs to the public, shows your strong bias. The truth is the plan caters to ranchers. Here are things they have asked for that they got: diversified livestock, row crops, bed and breakfasts and other retail, mobile slaughterhouses, 20-year leases, a more permissive succession policy...the Ranchers Association apparently even picked the superintendent, naming Cuyahoga Valley National Park as an example of how they'd like to see things run, leading to Superintendent Kenkel being moved from Ohio to CA. The ranchers even have the park insisting to journalists that they say Point Reyes National Seashore, rather than calling it a "national park," so the ranchers can continue to pretend there is some legal or policy difference, which is false.
Regarding your accusation of George and others misrepresenting the facts, other than your claim about the ranchers' attitude towards the elk, which is not a meaningful topic for debate, you give exactly one example: "it's widely understood that grazing is necessary at Point Reyes to maintain open grasslands and prevent catastrophic wildfires." If you are implying the grazing necessarily be by domestic cattle, then this is false. If you admit that it could be native animals, such as elk and pronghorn, then it is irrelevant to the debate. The elk preserve, free from cattle since 1973, is not a fire hazard. Native vegetation, such as would be in Point Reyes if not for the heavily impacted ranches and dairies, are deeper rooted and more drought resistant than the shallow-rooted, invasive grasses encouraged by the ranches.
Since you're unhappy about how it turned out, why don't you ask the "Point Reyes agricultural community" to consider another compromise: get your dying and polluting industry out of our national park, and we'll let you keep the money you got for selling your land to the people decades ago, all the profit you made in the interim on taxpayer subsidies, all the property you bought elsewhere in Marin with that money, and the many millions of additional dollars you got from your MALT buddies and extended family, also at taxpayer expense. Deal?
https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2021/03/18/point-reyes-national-somethin...
I wouldn't expect Kenneth Bouley to share my perspective, since he, too, works with one of the anti-ranch pressure groups working against agriculture at Point Reyes. In his case, it's RRI. He wrote the report about the public comments that RRI issued, which was created to bolster the false claim that there is "overwheloming public opposition" to ranching at Point Reyes. That claim is absurd: most of the anti-ranch comments are the direct result of campaigns by these anti-ranch pressure groups. As I have reported: https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2016/08/op-ed-anti-ranch-activists...
Kenneth doesn't seem to be up on the recent changes to the EIS; row crops have been eliminated.
Regarding grazing, there is a huge difference between grazing by wildlife and managed grazing. Elk certainly graze, but they eat whatever they want, and they eat it down to the nub. Managed grazing with cattle allows the stewards of the land to direct the grazing, managing which grasses are eaten where, and for how long. That's why the EIS includes that part that I quoted, about the potential cessation of ranching bringing the risk of large intense wildfires. If grazing elk were sufficient to prevent this, I'm sure the Seashore would say that in the EIS. But they don't: the EIS explains that if ranching ceased, mitigation would be required in the form of contracted managed grazing or mowing machines. It would certainly be ironic to kick out the historic ranches only to have to hire someone else's cattle, which I guess would be brought in on trucks. And I think it would be terrible to have the noise of mowing in Point Reyes.
Sometimes I wonder if the anti-ranch crowd has really thought these things through.
Sarah, what you call "anti-ranch pressure groups" are actually just grass-roots environmental groups, which naturally oppose polluting industries in national parks. People join such groups because they represent their values. For you to describe the tens of thousands of people who spoke out against alternative B as "gullible," is self-serving and condescending. It's as if your problem is the public commented during the public comment period. And I guess the ranchers' association was too principled to try to fool anyone into speaking out on their behalf, since hardly anyone did. No one besides the sliver of vested-interest people that already agree with you take this seriously.
About grazing, the EIS says in fact that elk foraging would help somewhat, and it also says removing cattle *may* (not will) increase fire danger in the former pastoral zone. As long as you are willing to cite the EIS with confidence, then you will have to agree that removing cattle would benefit the air, water, soil, and wildlife, since the EIS is crystal clear on all this. Speaking of thinking things through, you also might give some thought to the 24,000 metric tons of greenhouse gasses produced by cattle in the park, and what that does to the climate, and where these catastrophic fires come from.
I agree with you that it is terrible to have the sound of mowing in the park, as currently happens periodically in the silage fields. I similarly dislike the water and hay trucks coming in going, and especially the manure spreading trucks distributing a stench along with the noise. I don't relish the sound of gunshots, either, but I understand the park has bought silencers.