Environmentalists have long sought to end grazing in the park, but grazing must continue because elk alone cannot stop brush from encroaching onto the park’s endangered grasslands. Given that the Nature Conservancy has used cattle for conservation purposes, I wrote back in June 2023 that perhaps the grasslands would benefit from the conservancy’s intervention in the lawsuit. Apparently, I was not the only one suggesting this idea, as shown by the recent settlement. In that deal, all parties surprisingly got most of what they wanted.
Dairying is a hard business. It seems unlikely that the dairies could defeat prevailing economic headwinds, so closing—without any transition money—was probably only a matter of time. Now they will divide a sizable amount of transition money. After using it to fund closure requirements, it is unknown whether they will retire or move their operations elsewhere.
The park’s beef operators, many of whom already run cattle on lands outside the park, will also get transition money. Some pro-ranchers complain that ending commercial grazing here could allow endangered grasslands to devolve into “poorly managed pseudo wilderness.” But this ignores the Nature Conservancy involvement and the park’s newly revised record of decision that increases by six-fold the maximum number of cattle intended for conservation purposes, known as targeted grazing.
The animal rightists got most of what they wanted: no more culling of elk in the park and the removal of the elk fence (which the park was going to remove anyway). But the de facto fencing at the park’s external boundaries will remain, and any elk leaving the park will almost certainly be culled to prevent the spread of Johne’s disease.
The litigating environmentalists also got most of what they wanted: the end of all dairying and most ranching in the park. Commercial cattle counts will be down 85 percent from the prior parkwide total. Some complain that ranchers are “double dipping,” having been paid fair value for selling their land and now getting a buyout of leases that were discretionary and thus without value. But this ignores the value of Congress’s unwritten promise to allow sellers of their private ranchlands to continue ranching.
The park also got most of what it wanted by navigating between Congress’s promise to ranchers and environmentalists who asserted that, absent any written promise, the ranchers had no right to remain. The ranchlands were thrust into the spotlight when the Drakes Estero oyster farm selected itself to champion agriculture by claiming a right to continue under the same Congressional promise that allowed ranches to continue.
But the ranchlands were originally private lands outside congressionally designated wilderness, while the estero was public water inside a wilderness area. As such, the oyster farm’s claim had no merit—as a long series of court decisions found. Ironically, this ill-considered attempt to champion commercial agriculture in the park has resulted in the virtual cessation of commercial agriculture there.
Lastly, ranch workers will reportedly get funding for severance and relocation. While not the $100,000 requested for each, the amount appears within the industry standard of one to two weeks per year of work. How these funds will be administered needs to be settled; losing a job and a home is upsetting enough without the added upset of an unknown severance.
Despite the closure of the park dairies being a loss to the local community, culture and lives, it may be useful to recall that when the park was founded in the 1960s, there were 60 dairies, and each closure was a loss to the local community, culture and lives. There was no transition funding then. Now there is funding for both operators and employees.
The settlement marks the beginning of a new process. How precisely will conservation grazing be managed? What role will prescribed burning play in preserving grasslands? Can the 77 historic structures to be vacated be adaptively reused for housing park personnel or nonprofits? How will the Nature Conservancy, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and the park service work together?
Not everyone got all they wanted out of the settlement, but I would encourage readers not to harp on small parts of the settlement they don’t like. Instead, celebrate an end to this long controversy with an outcome in which most parties involved got most of what they wanted. We have not seen the last and may never see the last of cattle grazing in the park. But it will primarily be conservation grazing, not commercial grazing. Let the new process unfold.
Gordon Bennett was a Marin representative on the former Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore Citizens Advisory Commission. He lives in Inverness Park.