Under the terms of the Point Reyes National Seashore’s recent general management plan amendment, issued in September 2020, the park service plans to cull the Drakes Beach herd of native tule elk to limit its number to 140 animals. The current population of that herd is 170. I emailed park Superintendent Craig Kenkel and asked if he has plans to shoot 30 elk. His answer was, “No comment.”
I also asked if he had any plans to modify the ranch succession policy, which currently states that if a rancher surrenders his or her lease, it must be offered first to the leaseholder’s family, then to any other park leaseholder who might be interested, and finally to all the leaseholder’s employees, rather than opening it to competitive bidding or offering it to the public for restoration. His answer was, “No comment.”
I asked him if he could provide an update on the mitigation status for several recently exposed leaseholder abuses in the seashore, including illegal bulldozing of sensitive riparian habitat on Home Ranch, an illegal toxic dump site on E Ranch and leaking or missing septic systems at ranch buildings on B and L Ranches. His answer was, “No
comment.”
I asked the superintendent if it was true, as reported in the North Bay Bohemian, that since 2019, the Point Reyes National Seashore has spent $54,000 in taxpayer monies on pistols, silencers, teargas and 30,000 rounds of ammunition. Initially, the superintendent ignored this question, but when pressed, he sent a partial answer, with the information “at his fingertips.” The silencers are for shooting small animals quietly. Some of the ammo is rubber bullets, considered a “de-escalation tool.” He did not mention the tear gas or account for the full amount of the purchases.
I then asked if he would meet with restoration advocates regarding the issue of citizen and park staff safety in the event of demonstrations in response to unpopular management actions. He ignored the request.
The superintendent wrote, “The National Park Service does not comment on matters in litigation.” But this is not true. In February, the chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, an official management partner of the seashore, claimed that elephant seals were dying in Point Reyes due to manure runoff. Around the same time, Representative Jared Huffman issued a press release urging the park to take emergency measures to protect the seals. Soon after, I spent more than two hours on the phone, on the record, with park spokeswoman Melanie Gunn and the seashore’s seal biologist. The phone call was initiated by Ms. Gunn after I had posted information about the tribe’s and our Congressman’s concerns on Instagram. (In the past, park social media staff deleted several of my comments until I pointed out they were violating my First Amendment rights.)
So what the superintendent means, apparently, is that his office selectively comments on matters under litigation. Sometimes it suits them to withhold information, but they make exceptions for damage control and other public-relations activities.
Environmentalists consider the 140-animal limit on the Drakes Beach herd arbitrary and unscientific. The limit, of course, is for the benefit of the nearby ranchers, who have stated that elk and cattle cannot coexist. But contrary to strawman opinions recently published in the Light, the groundswell of opposition to plans to extend ranching on Point Reyes is not just about elk.
After the park service ignored passionate and lopsided public opposition, environmental groups challenged the plan under the Point Reyes National Seashore Act, which established the park in 1962 for the purposes of “public recreation, benefit and inspiration,” the National Park Service Organic Act, which requires the agency to leave natural resources “unimpaired” for the benefit of future generations, the Clean Water Act, which safeguards water-quality standards, and the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental review.
Given the scope of the environmental groups’ lawsuit, the strategy of responding selectively means that park administrators can ignore virtually any inquiry about any natural resource or management issue in the park. In other words, they are now refusing to do one part of their job—informing the public they serve—because they previously failed to adequately do a different part of their job, namely protecting park resources as required by law.
Courts frown on provocations from litigants, and killing elk now would certainly qualify. But it could happen anytime—or culling may have already occurred. Stubbornly refusing to answer simple questions regarding public resources in their care is a serious contravention of the very spirit of the park service. What’s worse is that it’s not quite clear that only elk are in danger, since the park service appears to be arming itself against the civilian public, which has made its desires on the matter abundantly clear through years of advocacy, rational critique and peaceful protests.
Ken Bouley is a software architect and amateur wildlife photographer who lives in Inverness and loves the Point Reyes National Seashore.