As predicted, the park’s Tomales Point Area Plan will study the preferred alternative of removing the elk fence. With elk on both sides of it, the fence has become not just useless but also costly to maintain and a danger to both elk and Point Reyes National Seashore staff tasked with returning the elk that push through it. These on-the-ground driving factors were supported by public comment that called for the fence’s removal.
Yet public comment on park planning does not amount to a vote, despite the push from anti-ranchers who will undoubtedly take (undue) credit for the park’s preferred alternative. Even if comments had called for keeping the fence, it is likely that the conditions on the ground would still have resulted in the park preferring to remove the fence.
Seashore officials have not helped public understanding with their less than clear justification for reviewing the management of Tomales Point, noting only that it must address impacts from climate change. Yet much more has changed since the reintroduction of tule elk in 1978. At that time, the threat of elk contracting Johne’s disease was not understood, nor was the mineral deficiency that deforms elk antlers as a result of subpar forage in the fenced reserve. With the benefit of hindsight, it was probably a mistake for the park service to allow the state to reintroduce elk to Tomales Point, which is too close to urban centers to allow the reintroduction of natural predators such as wolves and grizzlies. But in the 1970s, federal and state laws mandated reintroductions. And interagency experts, based on the best science available in 1978, concluded that Tomales Point was suitable.
So the seashore’s elk have inherited multiple problems that need serious reconsideration. But the anti-ranchers’ attempt to twist every elk and ranch problem into a one-size-fits-all solution—get rid of all ranches—is a simplistic message that’s easy to sell, particularly when mixed with disinformation, such as their claim that taking down the fence will prevent elk from being shot. This is another example of anti-ranchers’ ends-justifies-the-means approach to promoting their goals with disinformation—a practice that my May 11 op-ed thoroughly skewered.
So while park staff have non-lethal options to encourage elk and ranches to coexist, elk in the seashore will be shot because the only option outside the park’s boundaries is lethal. Since elk at Point Reyes have the chronic wasting disease known as Johne’s, the Department of Fish and Wildlife will not allow any of them outside the park. This means that removing the Tomales Point elk fence will just move a de facto fence to the seashore’s boundaries. And when the future elk population reaches capacity and spills outside the park, the department will issue hunting permits. Contrary to anti-ranchers’ false claims, these elk can never roam freely. They will always be fenced in.
The anti-ranchers’ desire to end all ranching is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The movement known as conservation grazing has environmental benefits, while eliminating all grazing would remove a valuable tool to maintain and restore the seashore’s grasslands. According to the California Native Grassland Association, grasslands are among the most endangered ecosystems in the United States. This mosaic of grass, ferns, forbs and scrub was created by Indigenous burning to create elk and game habitat. Europeans stopped those burning practices, resulting in an incursion of scrub vegetation and a buildup of fuel that makes wildfires extremely dangerous. Prescribed burning can be done, but it must be supplemented by other restoration tools, including conservation grazing.
Ironically, tule elk at Point Reyes also depend on grasslands, so getting rid of all grazing, as the anti-ranchers want, will ultimately eliminate both elk habitat and elk. Visitors can see this difference on the trail to Abbotts Lagoon. To the left are grazed areas that elk love, and to the right are ungrazed areas that have been taken over by scrub and are now inhospitable to elk.
The Nature Conservancy uses cattle for conservation purposes on its preserves across the country. From their summer 2023 magazine: “Cattle…will be allowed to graze on much of the preserve. The primary focus will shift toward sustainability and creating a healthier landscape. Conservation and cattle might seem an unlikely pairing, but the relationship is surprisingly symbiotic…cattle are great tools for managing grasslands. All day, they munch on invasive species… Grazing also helps maintain proper levels of thatch—reducing potential wildfire fuel and creating space where wildflowers can germinate…. Ranchers are our eyes and ears on the ground.”
Reducing livestock numbers and moving to seasonal grazing will not restore grasslands. In fact, removing all grazing, as the anti-ranchers want, would be environmentally devastating. The seashore’s grassland problems are more complex than these simplistic solutions.
In 2022, the Nature Conservancy announced that it had recently signed an agreement with the National Park Service to develop a restoration plan for reefs in all national park waters. Perhaps a similar restoration plan for grasslands in all park ranchlands is also needed.
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.