You are here

Share
Is this kind of damage from private livestock the kind of impact the National Park Service should permit?/George Wuerthner

Is this kind of damage from private livestock the kind of impact the National Park Service should permit? Photo George Wuerthner

Op-Ed | National Park Service Capitulated To Point Reyes Ranchers

By George Wuerthner

The final Record of Decision (ROD) on livestock operations management at Point Reyes National Seashore was released this week. Unfortunately, and as feared, it not only maintains the ongoing degradation of this national park unit by privately owned domestic livestock, but it expands the opportunities for a handful of ranchers to do even more damage to the public’s landscape with additional lands opened for grazing, as well as the planting of row crops.

As in the draft document, the final management plan proposes to kill the native Tule elk if their populations grow beyond what the ranchers believe (as the NPS jumps to) is undesirable. The public submitted some 50,000 comments opposed to continued ranching and the killing of rare native Tule elk. Point Reyes Seashore is the only national park where Tule elk exist.

Tule elk are a rare subspecies of the animal only found in California, and Point Reyes is the only park that holds Tule elk/NPS

Among the impacts caused by the ongoing livestock operations is the pollution of the park’s waterways, increased soil erosion, the spread of exotic weeds, the transfer of park vegetation from wildlife use to consumption by domestic livestock,  the use of public facilities j(the ranch buildings, etc. are all owned by the U.S. citizens but are used just as if they were private property, hindering public access to its lands.

Indeed, one stream in the park has some of the highest coliform bacteria counts found along the entire California coast. For instance, a recent survey found E. coli bacteria concentrations up to 40 times higher than state health standards. Likewise, enterococci bacteria were up to 300 times the state health standard at Kehoe Lagoon.

The NPS plays up the fact that farming/ranching was a historical use of the area justifies the continued degradation of the park based on “historical and cultural” preservation/George Wuerthner

About one-third of the 71,000-acre national seashore is designated a “pastoral zone,” where 15 ranch operations graze approximately 5,700 cattle (more than ten times the number of Tule elk) on 28,000 acres of parkland as well as 10,000 acres in the adjacent Golden Gate National Recreation Area. A total of 24 ranches operate on these public lands.

Proponents of continued ranching/farming in the national seashore argue that ongoing livestock operations maintain a “cultural” and “historic” landscape. Imagine if we applied these same criteria to other national park units. Domestic sheep once heavily grazed Yosemite. Redwood National Park’s old-growth forests were once logged. Fur trapping was once a prevalent occupation in Grand Teton National Park. Oil and gas exploration and operating wells were historically common in Glacier National Park. And, of course, the killing of wolves occurred in Denali and other park units. Gold mining was common in Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Should we permit these “cultural” and “historic” traditions to occur in these parks?

Should the NPS restore or allow the continued historic resource extraction at other parks? Logging in Redwood NP, oil wells in Glacier, and fur trapping in Grand Teton because it was part of the historical landscape?/George Wuerthner

It should be pointed out that there are numerous opportunities outside of a national park unit to produce beef and dairy. For example, more than 5 million cattle (dairy and beef) graze California private lands where ongoing livestock operations are permitted. Therefore, we don’t need to compromise a national park unit to produce something available elsewhere.

Interional Ecological Significance

In the 1950s, seven NPS studies concluded that a national park unit in the Point Reyes peninsula would protect the vulnerable landscape from future development. Point Reyes is a spectacular landscape of open prairies and patches of woodlands home to 460 species, 876 plants, and many different marine and terrestrial mammals. In addition, the seashore harbors a hundred listed rare, threatened, and endangered species, an incredible diversity given the seashore’s relatively small size.

This biological diversity prompted UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere program to designate Point Reyes as an international biosphere reserve. California also gives the marine environment special recognization through its designations of the Point Reyes State Marine Reserve & Point Reyes State Marine Conservation Area, Estero de Limantour State Marine Reserve & Drakes Estero State Marine Conservation Area, and Duxbury Reef State Marine Conservation Area.

The lagoons and esteros of Point Reyes are of international significance but polluted by domestic livestock/George Wuerthner

In 1962 when Point Reyes National Seashore was established, the federal government purchased the ranches found on the peninsula at fair market value. As a result, ranch owners received hundreds of millions of dollars. Some used the money to buy property in other parts of California so they could continue to farm. But some of the ranchers lobbied for and got a generous 25-year extension to operate using the publicly owned property. After that time, they were supposed to leave the park.

However, when the allotted time for vacating the public’s land arrived, they balked and managed to get another extension. This lease extension has been repeated several times for nearly 60 years, and again the NPS is buckling to political pressure to extend the leases for another couple of decades.

This plan is in direct violation of the law creating the national seashore. The legislation requires that Point Reyes National Seashore “shall be administered by the Secretary without impairment of its natural values, in a manner which provides for such recreational, educational, historic preservation, interpretation, and scientific research opportunities as are consistent with, based upon, and supportive of the maximum protection, restoration, and preservation of the natural environment within the area.” Therefore, permitting continued livestock operations in the park unit is not consistent with the stated legislative goals.

What Is Behind The NPS Capitulation?

I am extremely disappointed in the National Park Service for this decision and that the Biden administration upholds it. I can only assume that there is an underlying political motivation. If we can’t maintain a national park unit as a sanctuary for wild nature, where can we?

One idea suggested to me is that Governor Gavin Newsom put pressure on the administration to maintain the current dairy and livestock operations to avoid greater controversy for Democrats in general. Of course, I am not privy to any insider’s knowledge, but certainly endorsing private businesses and environmental destruction of public property for private financial gain is not the usual NPS management philosophy.

Point Reyes is one of the few portions of the California coast where natural processes and native species are supposed to be given priority. Still, unfortunately, the NPS is failing in its mission to do so.

Point Reyes is one of the few portions of the California coast where natural processes and native species are supposed to be given priority. Still, unfortunately, the NPS is failing in its mission to do so/George Wuerthner

Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological Diversity, and Resource Renewal Institute have previously sued to get the NPS to consider all the ecological values that are impaired and to follow the law. Let’s hope that a court will agree that the NPS is not following the legislative mandate to protect the park’s natural values and vacates this plan that is demeaning to the public and the reputation of the National Park Service.

Support National Parks Traveler

National Parks Traveler is a small, editorially independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit media organization. The Traveler is not part of the federal government nor a corporate subsidiary. Your support helps ensure the Traveler's news and feature coverage of national parks and protected areas endures. 

EIN: 26-2378789

Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE WWW.FRESHFROMFLORIDA.COM. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.

Comments

I'm curious where this number of "hundreds of millions of dollars" came from.  At the very least, the dollar value of agricultural real estate would not have been that much in the 1960s.  I looked up the establishing legislation and found a base land acquisition budget $57,500,000 and an additional $5 million.

https://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/management/upload/lawsandpolicies_usc16se...

Sec. 459c-7. Authorization of appropriations; restriction on use of land

-STATUTE-
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 459c to 459c-7 of this title, except that no more than $57,500,000 shall be appropriated for the acquisition of land and waters and improvements thereon, and interests therein, and incidental costs relating thereto, in accordance with the provisions of such sections: Provided, That no freehold, leasehold, or lesser interest in any lands hereafter acquired within the boundaries of the Point Reyes National Seashore shall be conveyed for residential or commercial purposes except for public accommodations, facilities, and services provided pursuant to sections 20 to 20g and 462(h) of this title. In addition to the sums heretofore authorized by this section, there is further authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the acquisition of lands or interests therein.


Point Reyes is truly a gem and deserves our best.  However, I found this article - while providing some useful information - to be extremely and excessively biased.  Perspectives and facts were omitted, and one can only assume that to be intentional.  I cannot trust an organization, nor fully trust this article, when so very much bias exists.  I can't even tell what important information is missing for a balanced perspective, so must toss the entire mess.


this sentence is similarly inaccurate: "But some of the ranchers lobbied for and got a generous 25-year extension to operate using the publicly owned property. After that time, they were supposed to leave the park."  All of the still-operating ranches were purchased in the early 1970s with 20-year (except for one ranch, which had a 30-year) Reservations of Use and Occupancy -- paid for as part of the purchase agreement -- and those were converted to leases or special use permits in the early 1990s when they expired.  There has never been any requirement for ranching to leave the park, and in contrast, many statements starting in the late 1950s valuing keeping ranching as part of the landscape.


Mark, of course perspectives and facts were omitted, as they are in every article about any issue even moderately complex.  I live alongside the park, am not affiliated professionally with any envirinmental organization, and I beleive George is basically correct in his treatment.  In fact, as a concerned citizen, I have wrritten extensively about it.  I am providing you a link here because what I wrote was much longer and went into more detail, which you seem to be willing to look into.  Please contact me for any feedback or more info on Point Reyes. [email protected]

 

 

https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2021/06/25/the-myths-of-point-reyes-part-i/

https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2021/06/26/the-myths-of-point-reyes-part...

https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2021/06/28/the-myths-of-point-reyes-part...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBIX1KAIsCA


Actually, most of the RUPs were for 25 years.  As far as requirement to leave, those RUPs were fixed term (i.e. "not to exceed 25 years or the life of the rancher or spouse.")  Please site any of those 1950s statements you mention. The Administrative History of PRNS summarized this way: "Legislators paid close attention to property owners' rights, but the ranches and dairies were not elements that the NPS, park supporters, or legislators sought to protect as part of the larger national seashore idea." Sadin, p 89.  Whereas in 1978 the Secretary's right to extend leases was established, the NPS' EIS makes it clear that the ranches are significant sources of pollution (and will continue to be under the new plan) so they do not belong in the park based on broad language in the Organic Act and the PRNS Enabling legislation. 


The full amount is almost $400 million in adjusted dollars.  About the cost of real estate, the peninsula was being increasingly eyed by developers, which some accounts was being leveraged by the owners to drive purchase prices up.


env_historian:
this sentence is similarly inaccurate: "But some of the ranchers lobbied for and got a generous 25-year extension to operate using the publicly owned property. After that time, they were supposed to leave the park."  All of the still-operating ranches were purchased in the early 1970s with 20-year (except for one ranch, which had a 30-year) Reservations of Use and Occupancy -- paid for as part of the purchase agreement -- and those were converted to leases or special use permits in the early 1990s when they expired.  There has never been any requirement for ranching to leave the park, and in contrast, many statements starting in the late 1950s valuing keeping ranching as part of the landscape.

I'm a bit unclear on how that started off in the establishing legislation or what the original terms were of the leases.  There were definitely changes made to the law in the 1970s that affected the terms that clearly state that the leases can be extended.  I believe the language means that the original terms had to be converted to a 25 year lease or a life term, but clearly with the ability to renew or even to offer the land to a new tenant.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title16/html/USCODE-2019...

Sec. 459c-5. Owner's reservation of right of use and occupancy for fixed term of years or life

(a) Election of term; fair market value; termination; notification; lease of Federal lands:

restrictive covenants, offer to prior owner or leaseholder

Except for property which the Secretary specifically determines is needed for interpretive or resources management purposes of the seashore, the owner of improved property or of agricultural property on the date of its acquisition by the Secretary under sections 459c to 459c- 7 of this title may, as a condition of such acquisition, retain for himself and his or her heirs and assigns a right of use and occupancy for a definite term of not more than twenty-five years, or, in lieu thereof, for a term ending at the death of the owner or the death of his or her spouse, whichever is later. The owner shall elect the term to be reserved. Unless the property is wholly or partly donated to the United States, the Secretary shall pay to the owner the fair market value of the property on the date of acquisition minus the fair market value on that date of the right retained by the owner. A right retained pursuant to this section shall be subject to termination by the Secretary upon his or her determination that it is being exercised in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of sections 459c to 459c-7 of this title, and it shall terminate by operation of law upon the Secretary's notifying the holder of the right of such determination and tendering to him or her an amount equal to the fair market value of that portion of the right which remains unexpired. Where appropriate in the discretion of the Secretary, he or she may lease federally owned land (or any interest therein) which has been acquired by the Secretary under sections 459c to 459c-7 of this title, and which was agricultural land prior to its acquisition. Such lease shall be subject to such restrictive covenants as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of sections 459c to 459c-7 of this title. Any land to be leased by the Secretary under this section shall be offered first for such lease to the person who owned such land or was a leaseholder thereon immediately before its acquisition by the United States.


"Everyone agrees the federal government paid fair market value for land bought from ranchers, but grazing fees may be a different story. Between 1963-1978, the government paid ranching families nearly $50 million for their lands, then allowed them to run dairy and cattle operations on public land under successive 20- and 30-year leases."

- From KQED, 2018. This amount is equivalent to about $350 million in today's dollars. 


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.