The Public Wants Elk, Not Ranches! The question is, is the NPS even listening?

Ranchers and politicians have long claimed that there is overwhelming public support for ranching at Point Reyes National Seashore and GGNRA, but have never offered any evidence to support their claim. The 7,627 public comments to the National Park Service’s (NPS) draft General Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for ranching in these parks say otherwise.
 
More than 90 percent of the comments submitted to the NPS oppose ranching.
 
The sheer number of comments to the proposed plan suggests there’s been a lot of pent up concern. That thousands of people took time to write to the NPS isn’t surprising given that ranching at these parks has never before been subjected to public comment. Until environmentalists sued the NPS in 2016, the Park Service and ranchers negotiated their deals out of the public eye. A settlement agreement in 2017 required the Park Service at the national seashore to produce the first-ever Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for ranching—something the Seashore Ranchers Association long resisted. Under the law (NEPA), the public was given the chance to weigh in on the future of ranching on these public lands. 7,627 people did.
 
The NPS’s draft plan offered six alternatives for ranching. The comments to the plan were made public in February. Since then, a team of volunteers has been reading and categorizing all of the comments. The analysis found that 91.4 percent of the comments (6,969) oppose ranching as proposed in the NPS’s plan. Of these, fully 23 percent (1,757) of commenters endorse Alternative F, the only No Ranching alternative.  27.5 percent (2,094) of comments opposed ranching in general. 20.4 percent (1,555) specifically objected to the NPS’s “preferred alternative,” Alternative B. Comments in support of ranching totaled 2.3 percent (179).  6.3 percent of comments (479) were coded “neutral,” as they did not refer to ranching. 
 
Hundreds of the comments were read by more than one reviewer to account for reader subjectivity. The results were surprisingly consistent. An independent research analyst to the agricultural sector vetted the methods used in coding the comments.
 
People gave many reasons for their opposition to ranching: the prevalence of cow manure in the park; polluted creeks; bare and trodden landscapes; fences that limit public recreation. Some specifically objected to the NPS’s preferred alternative, Alternative B, which would allow so-called “diversification,” enabling Seashore ranchers to introduce more livestock and crops, open retail stores and offer overnight “farm stays.” Others took issue with granting unprecedented 20-year leases. 20 percent of commenters (1,563) specifically criticized killing native Tule elk to provide more grass for cattle, which outnumber the Tule elk 10 to 1.

Concerns over the climate impacts of animal agriculture and converting land for crops also were cited, as was pollution from cattle manure runoff to creeks. According to the NPS’s draft EIS, cattle are the largest source of greenhouse gases at the Seashore and the biggest drain on limited water supplies. Some commenters asked the NPS for its rationale for subsidizing commercial ranching, given the many environmental impacts. Others said they aren’t opposed to ranching per se, but don’t think it belongs in a national park.
 
The question is, is the NPS even listening to the public?  Point Reyes National Seashore Outreach Coordinator Melanie Gunn told the San Francisco Chronicle, “The number of comments received on an alternative is not a determination of its merit for consideration.”
 
The final plan for ranching is due out this spring. Once the GMPA is finalized, the public will have 30 days to review the plan before it is executed. Environmental organizations have asked the NPS to delay the planning process in light of COVID-19 out of concern that the current crisis will deprive local communities and other stakeholders from engaging with the NPS on revisions to the plan. The NPS has not said whether it will delay.
 
Meanwhile, the federal government has been using this time to roll back environmental protections and lease public lands for drilling, fracking, logging, mining and ranching. Congressman Jared Huffman, who sits on the House Natural Resources Committee and supports ranching in these two parks, needs to hear from all of us. 
 
Rep. Jared Huffman, San Rafael District Office. 999 Fifth Ave. Suite 290 San Rafael, CA 94901. 
Phone: (415) 258-9657, huffman.house.gov/contact/email-me
 
The full public comments to the NPS draft plan for ranching and the analysis can be found at restoreptreyesseashore.org