Tule Elk Deaths At Point Reyes National Seashore Bring Charges Of Mismanagement

Ah, the foul scent of politics and money waft through the fresh air of yet another National Park.

There are cows in a national park?? Are you kidding??

No, there is a National Park on ranch land through an arrangement made before the Park existed. 

http://www.ptreyes.org/activities/ranching-seashore

Why are the ranches allowed to remain, but the oyster farm was shut down? It too was in business before the seashore was designated.

Well I would agree the oyster farm shouldn't have been shut down either but I think the ranches operation aren't depending on their prexistence but it would appear on a formal agreement associated with the sale of the land.   The land was owned by the ranchers.  I'm guesing as a condition of the sale to the Feds, the ranchers were promised grazing rights.  Would be interesting to see documentation of the orginal deal. 

[edit]  From an NPS site:

'The compromise hammered out by Congress and signed by President Kennedy in 1962 explicitly provided for the retention of the ranches in a designated pastoral zone, with ranchers signing 25-30 year reservations of use and occupancy leases, and special use permits for cattle grazing'

http://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/historyculture/people_ranching.htm

[edit edit]  Here is the actual bill, it doesn't seem to say what the above edit said.  It merely says the ranchers can't be forced to sell. Nothing about 25-30 reservations.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/87/s476/text

There must have been some later action.

Shutting down the oyster farm is another example of environmental ideological stupidity. 

Glad the oyster farm was shut down.  Now the estuary can become a wilder and more biologically diverse place, not just a farm harboring mostly a monoculture of non-native species.

Feinstein called on the NAS to conduct an external review of the Park Service’s environmental studies. The resulting report concluded that Park Service scientists, in setting out to prove the farm was causing environmental harm, had "selectively presented, over-interpreted, or misrepresented the available scientific information" and “exaggerated the negative and overlooked potentially beneficial effects of the oyster culture operation.”

For example, when they saw seal numbers dropping, scientists made targeted assumptions about the oyster farm that ignored critical variables, such as nosy kayakers and shifting sandbars. Such limited data, the NAS said, “cannot be used to infer cause and effect.” Ultimately, the NAS “conclude[d] that there is a lack of strong scientific evidence that shellfish farming has major adverse ecological effects on Drakes Estero.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/30/oyster-shell-game-300225.html

yep, just more environmental ideological stupidity and dishonesty by the NPS. 

From what I read the oyster farm was closed because the lease (think it was a 40 year lease) that was assigned to the original owners when the park was established had expired. 7 years before the lease was due to expire the original owners sold the lease, the new owners tried to get the lease extended and failed. The Drakes Estero was designated as potential wilderness area when the park was established, which would become  a wilderness area when the lease was up, the tenants had vacated and all the machinery etc. was removed. Looks like the original intention is going to be fulfilled.

, which would become a wilderness area when the lease was up

Drakes Estero "could" become a wilderness.  As I recall, there was no requirement.

Elk should take precedence over cows in a National Park.  Not even a question, in my opinion.  Cows are all over the western and eastern USA.  They are everywhere, even in places where there is little water, and resources are scarce- but there they are and in numbers that far exceed the carrying capacity of the land.   An endangered species can not be associated with domesticated cattle. That status can be used to describe Tule Elk.

I don't know if it was "could" or "would". But I would wonder why Drakes was identified as potential wilderness and why a sunset date was established for the commercial enterprise if there wasn't some intent as to what Drakes was intended to become, namely a Wilderness Area.

if there wasn't some intent

The drafters of the legislation have publicly stated that was not their intent.

Elk instead of cattle, why not.  Elk meat is much better for you. 

So Ron, you think the agreement made with the ranchers should now just be ignored?

Ecbuck

Their actions established their intent for me, which were designating the area as potential wilderness and setting a date for removing the main impediment from establishing it as a wilderness area.

And I don't think the agreement should be ignored but I also think the elk should be allowed to go where they want to go. This will be one for the lawyers.

"More than a dozen of America’s national parks carry “grandfather clauses” that allow privately owned beef cattle to eat and trample national park resources while their owners pay just a token fee to lease these grazing privileges from the National Park Service.

Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (CO)

Buffalo National River (AR)

Capitol Reef National Park (UT)

City of Rocks National Reserve (ID)

Coronado National Memorial (AZ)

Death Valley National Park (CA)

Dinosaur National Monument (CO)

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (UT)

Grand Teton National Park (WY)

Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NV)

Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area (WA)

Mojave National Preserve (CA)

Point Reyes National Seashore (CA)"

http://parkadvocate.org/commercial-beef-cattle-in-americas-national-park...

Their actions established their intent for me,

I'll go with what they said they intended over your interpretation of their actions:

http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20110813/former-legislators-back-poi...

In regards to the oyster farm, do you think its okay for the NPS to misrepresent the available scientific information? Does these ends justify the means?

I can think of at least one other park where this was done, right Buxton?

Of course that isn't right. Blowing up people and pouring millions of gallon of crude in the gulf isn't right either, the world is full of wrongs.

Nothing should have been a surprise to the former tenants at Drakes Bay.

http://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/management/upload/planning_dboc_sup_background_sup_080422.pdfs) 

The former tenants signed a lease that spelled out clearly when the lease was over.

Nothing should have been a surprise to the former tenants at Drakes Bay.

If everyone knew this was going to happen then why did the expend so much effort to smear and deceive everyone? Why would they risk thier credibility? 

I wonder if any thode deceitful NPS biologists were reprimanded in any way and are they involved in this fiasco?

Yes, the lease was over but there was no reason it couldn't be renewed.  As explicitly stated by the bills sponsors, it was not their intent to kick the Oyster business out - ever. 

At Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina the Park Service has been castigated for fencing off large areas of beach to allow for nesting piping plovers, a threatened species.

BTW - I don't consider posts and string a fence, it doesn't constrain these birds to an area.  

As of right now, these posts and string are being unnecessarily used to close off human access to the highly popular Cape Point beach for not endangered, not threatened, birds that have possibly shown breeding behavior. 

It is a symbolic fence intended to keep people from disturbing unique to CHNS  nesting birds, as specficed in that  Park's EL.

"and no development of the project or plan for the convenience of visitors shall be undertaken which would be incompatible with the preservation of the unique flora and fauna"

I don't think it really matters much that AMOYs are not a listed species. I thought Kurt's intention was just relating similar instances not implying that wild birds were being fenced in a national park.

Ecbuck,

It is to bad those sponsors didnt make their intentions clear when they sponsored the bill. Because the bill's language is much more clear that the area was suppose to become Wilderness area with no oyster farm.  And then there is the lease that was signed. What would you do with a tenant that signed a lease to leave and you had different plans for your property that you intended to pursue.

It is why these things are written and not done with a handshake and a promise.

Because the bill's language is much more clear that the area was suppose to become Wilderness area with no oyster farm.

Show me the language that said the oyster farm had to leave so that the area could become Wilderness. 

What would you do with a tenant that signed a lease to leave and you had different plans for your property that you intended to pursue.

Tenants don't sign leases "to leave".  I have several lease tenants and it is my hope and expectation and theirs that when the lease expires we will negotiate another one to keep them in place.

unique to CHNS nesting birds

Unique? These birds are found all over VA and NC coastal regions. 

Beachdumb,

They are unque to the specialized habitat and phisiographic properties of the Seashore. The word unique has meaning in the EL or it would not be there. By your definition nothing would be unique. In addition NC has these birds listed as species of concern. It is not up to the state of NC to dictate how federal mangers manage resources in a National Park (Seashore) which are consistently held to a higher standard than other federal land. It is enough that NC has identified AMOYs has having issues, maybe the state should take a lesson from how the Feds are managing these birds and if succesful they could be removed from the state's list.

Or maybe the Feds should take a lesson from the State since they manage and have more experience with these populations then the Feds do. So you agree that the AMOYS are not unique to the Seashore. 

Because the bill's language is much more clear that the area was suppose to become Wilderness area with no oyster farm.

I ask again Buxton - can you share that language with us?

ec, why not share the language you claim supports your interpretation of all this?

ec, why not share the language you claim supports your interpretation of all this?

I already did.

http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20110813/former-legislators-back-poi...

??????  Oysters = Elk ???????????

I reckon we can take that as another admission that you can't back up another of your fabrications with facts.

Really, what this all goes back to is the old buggaboo that plagues so many parks with conflicting portions of their management mandates.  When Congress tries to keep everyone happy, there ain't nobody happy.

In the meantime, some poor soul who was brave (or foolish) enough to become a park superintendent gets all the blame from all seventy six sides of the argument.

On May 3, 2012, Stewart filed his reports, determining there were no disturbances attributable to the oyster farm's boats. (There was one case, however, where a curious kayaker caused several seals to flush into the water.) But when the USGS published its final report that November, Stewart discovered that his findings had been altered and that the study reached conclusions his research directly contradicted. "It's clear that what I provided to them and what they produced were different conclusions and different values," says Stewart. "In science, you shouldn’t do that."

Buxton, that DOI report was done in 2011, but no one would expect the DOI to report honestly. The NAS report was done later, proving otherwise. 

Its interesting to me that the USGS dishonestly altered thier reports, like they did with their faking of peer review for the "Survey protocols for managing threatened and endangered species at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore".

No "woulds" or "coulds," but rather "shalls" and "potential"

And nothing that says or implies that the oyster farm was to be removed.  Buxton, you need to stop relying on hearsay.

Further, the courts weren't ruling based on intent related to the oyster farm.  They were ruling on whether the NPS had the power to shut it down.  They probably did.  Doesn't make it the right thing to have done.

the documents contained within or cited clearly show that the oyster farm was to be removed if the wilderness designation was to be made official.

When the sponsors of the legislation say that was not the intent and the legislation itself includes no such language, I have to believe the sponsors and the orginal documents not other comments and documents drawn up after the fact. 

Yes but the courts did not agree.

Once again Buxton - the courts didn't rule on their intent. The court ruled on the legality of the action.  The fact they found it legal doesn't reflect in any way on the intent nor does it necessarily make it the right thing to do. 

I'm not saying the courts ruled on the sponsors  intent. I am saying their intentions were not clear in the legislation. Wouldn't you wonder why that area was classified as a potential wilderness area in the legislation?  It would be a red flag for me if it was my intent that the oyster farm remain a renewable lease forever and the land was specifically classified as potential wilderness in the EL. Someone had to go ask them (the sponsors) what their intentions were after the fact.

I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this.

Wouldn't you wonder why that area was classified as a potential wilderness area in the legislation?

Not at all.  It was potential wilderness until the non-conforming use discontinued.  If the oyster farm decided to close on its own, the land would then become Wilderness.  The sponsors never intended for the oyster farm to be forced to close and there is no language in the founding documents that suggest it should be. 

Looks like some of the comments I submitted as replies didn't get formatted that way. Sorry for any confusion. Kurt, feel free to delete whatever you want.