26
Feb
Historic Coexistence of Organic Agriculture and Nature Interrupted by Forced Farm Closures at Point Reyes National Seashore
*** Beyond Pesticides has recently received an insulting broadside from an environmental group; click here to read the original email and a response from the organization that includes a deep history of Beyond Pesticides’ commitment to ecological and organic farming practices in local food systems that are just.Â
(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2025) The National Park Service (NPS) recently announced a settlement agreement regarding the management of northern California’s Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) that will result in the closure of 12 out of 14 historic dairy and cattle ranches, including those organically managed, within the park. This decision comes after nearly a decade of legal disputes and negotiations between environmental groups, ranchers, and the NPS, ending 170 years of family ranching, displacing multi-generational farmers—at least 90 farmworker families—and abandoning 77 historic ranch buildings. Critics lambast the agreement as devastating local organic agriculture and food production in West Marin County, which is essential for creating long-term climate solutions.
Over the decades since PRNS’ inception, local and national environmental groups have litigated against ranchers and the National Park Service, including demanding range expansion for the native tule elk, which were reintroduced to the park by NPS in the 1970s. However, the removal of these farms, and the accompanying loss of local food production, will have extreme long-term negative impacts on the local community and the environment, according to many environmental advocates.
As Andy Naja-Riese, executive director of the Agricultural Institute of Marin, puts it, “The greatest threat to the tule elk is not cattle; it’s global climate change, and what we can all do [to fight that threat] is preserve our local food system… We need to stop vilifying and attacking animal agriculture. Animal agriculture, when done right through organic, climate-smart, and regenerative practices, is a climate solution.â€
Background and History
Across the 70,000 acres of PRNS, NPS leases 18,000 to commercial beef and dairy ranches, many to the same families who have lived and ranched on the land for generations. When Point Reyes National Seashore was established in 1962, a compromise allowed existing ranches to continue operating under NPS lease agreements to balance the continuation of historic agricultural practices with the preservation of natural landscapes. Some ranches are even listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The ideal farming and ranching conditions of the expansive coastal prairie are not only due to long growing seasons, moist, cool conditions adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, but also, as NPS’ history of the region describes, “most likely the byproduct of burning, weeding, pruning, and harvesting for at least two millennia by Coast Miwok and their antecedents.†Today, approximately 20 multigenerational farming families remain in the park with approximately 200 farmworkers and their families.
This settlement agreement follows years of wrangling between Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Resource Renewal Institute as plaintiffs against NPS and individual ranchers. The plaintiffs first filed a lawsuit against NPS in 2016 for water quality violations resulting from ranch operations in the park. While the first lawsuit was settled, the group brought a second lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the recently renewed 20-year leases violated NPS’s legal obligations to the natural environment.
Negotiations between the parties were stalled until 2022 when two groups of beef and dairy ranchers, including the Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association, joined the mediation effort. In 2023, The Nature Conservancy joined the negotiations, bringing the funding necessary to finalize an agreement. In January 2025, NPS announced a settlement agreement in which six dairy and six beef ranches will close within 15 months—former leaseholders will be compensated through a $30 million settlement fund. In a last-minute addition, 90 ranch employees and their families will receive compensation and relocation assistance.
Among the multiple concerns voiced by advocates is the apparent lack of transparency in the negotiation process or the settlement agreement itself. “I think that for me, the big challenge is that a decision was made for us, without us,†said Mr. Naja-Riese. Unlike all other NPS planning processes, local stakeholders—including farmworkers and local business owners whose livelihoods will be decimated—were not invited to participate. The amounts of the lease buy-outs, severance packages, and relocation assistance also have not been disclosed. During a town hall meeting on January 11 hosted by U.S. House Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) to announce the mediated settlement, a wide range of local stakeholders spoke with anger and concern about the secretive mediation process that excluded key stakeholders as well as the dramatic impact the closure of the ranches will have on the wider West Marin County community and economy. Jasmine Bravo, a local advocate, asked, “I’m just wondering if you all have a plan for a workforce after the residents who live on ranches have been evicted, and you lose Isabel at the clinic, and my sister at the clinic, and Gabriel Romo at the bank, and everyone who works at the grocery stores and makes your food?â€
[Notably, some local indigenous representatives of the Miwok tribe protest their lack of inclusion [in the mediated settlement process—Updated from original text on February 27, 2025.] Long-term management of the tule elk herd remains one of the outstanding questions. Others are concerned as the herd, free from competition with cattle and absent natural predators, may quickly exceed the land’s ability to support it—hunting is not allowed within the borders of the national park.]
Post Settlement: The Future of PRNS and Resulting Impacts
In the wake of the ranching operations, the landscape of PRNS will look decidedly different. The Nature Conservancy has agreed to “co-manage†the restoration of the 16,000 acres of former ranch land as a “Scenic Landscape,†which will be opened to use by the tule elk, as well as other wildlife, although how this effort will be funded has not been disclosed. Liebe Patterson, a long-time donor to The Nature Conservancy declined to contribute to the buy-out fund for that very reason. As the Press Democrat reports, Ms. Patterson said, “…my concern was, it doesn’t take care of the problems. It just removes the ranchers from the seashore. It doesn’t clean up the waterways. It doesn’t manage the grasslands to keep them from becoming a fire hazard. It was just to buy out the leases.â€
Over the last several decades, many of the ranches slated for closure, such as Mendoza and BN Ranch, have become leaders in organic and regenerative agriculture, as well as Marin Sun Farms, a certified organic and Animal Welfare Approved facility. Marin Sun Farms is one of six beef ranch operations to close and also operates the last remaining USDA-inspected slaughterhouse in the San Francisco Bay Area.Â
The impact of these closures goes beyond the Point Reyes Seashore, with significant economic and food production implications. Straus Family Creamery, which operates its own certified organic farm and creamery just outside PRNS and has long been at the forefront of organic dairy farming, sources a third of its organic milk from the ranches in the park. Second-generation owner Albert Straus works closely with PRNS ranchers to pioneer a range of internationally recognized innovative practices with the goal of bringing its operations—and those of its organic dairy suppliers—to carbon neutrality by 2030. According to Straus, “What I’ve tried to do is create a sustainable organic farming model that is good for the earth, the soil, the animals, and the people working on these farms, and helps revitalize rural communities.â€
[In 2013, Straus Organic Dairy Farm became the first dairy farm in California to develop a carbon farm plan, with the Marin Carbon Project, updated in collaboration with the Marin Resource Conservation District and the Marin Agricultural Land Trust. Their practices reduced overall carbon emissions by experimenting with red seaweed cattle feed, implementing the use of a biodigester, and switching to electric farm vehicles, some of which are powered by methane captured from cattle operations and converted to fuel for farm vehicles. Straus currently provides technical expertise and assistance for ranches to develop their own “carbon farm plan.â€]
Albert Straus, founder of Straus Family Creamery, which manages the organic dairy, points out that climate change is wreaking havoc on traditional dairy and cattle operations. “By getting rid of these small family farms, we’re forcing dairy farms to get bigger and bigger and the whole food system to be less environmentally friendly and produce lower-quality food that’s not organic,†Mr. Straus said in 2023. “I think this could be the demise of our farming and food system.â€
Many local farming practices that will be terminated ultimately provide ecosystem benefits that are compatible with environmental conservation, with the ranchers supported by local conservation groups, including the Marin Agricultural Land Trust and Marin Conservation League. “The farmers and ranchers and farmworkers and the people who grow our food are environmentalists, and we need to start a conversation about agriculture environmentalism,†concludes Mr. Naja-Riese.
Late Breaking Lawsuit
A new legal challenge emerged on February 21, 2025, when attorney Andrew Giacomini filed a federal lawsuit to block the ranch closures, alleging a “conspiracy†between the National Park Service and The Nature Conservancy. The suit claims that the agencies deliberately created uncertainty for ranchers and that “the National Park Service, Acting Director, and Regional Director conspired with the Conservancy to pay off the departing ranchers in exchange for the ranchers relinquishing their rights to 20-year leases and instead leasing the ranchers’ property to the Conservancy.â€
The complaint focuses on the displacement of over 90 residents, mostly Latino families, many of whom have lived on these properties for decades. Also, ranchers reportedly face reduced compensation if residents remain on their properties after operations cease. The suit was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The Path Forward to a Livable Future
Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for the transition to organic and regenerative agricultural systems to urgently address the environmental and health challenges posed by conventional agriculture. The situation at PRNS serves as a critical reminder of the need to support and expand these practices. As we face the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, it is imperative that we prioritize agricultural systems that work in harmony with nature rather than against it. The loss of PRNS ranches represents not just a loss of local food production, but also a setback in the advancement of sustainable agricultural practices that are crucial for our future.
Beyond Pesticides joins advocates calling on policymakers, environmental organizations, and the public to recognize the vital role that organic agriculture can play in addressing our most pressing environmental challenges (see the recent decision by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which diverts public attention away from organic with a weakly definition of ‘regenerative agriculture’). Rather than viewing agriculture and conservation as opposing forces, we must seek solutions that integrate sustainable food production with ecosystem preservation. As Marin Agricultural Land Trust remarks, “The story of agriculture in Marin County has never been a straight line. Instead, it is a story of innovation and resilience, of ranchers and farmers who have faced challenges and stepped into the role of changemakers – from organic dairies to regenerative ranches to artisanal cheese visionaries.â€
Join Beyond Pesticides in taking action to end the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers! The path forward includes increased support for research and implementation of organic and regenerative-organic practices, as well as policy measures and financial support for farmers making the choice to transition to certified organic agriculture. In reflecting on the impacts of this litigation’s mediated settlement that will inexorably change this multi-generational agricultural community in Point Reyes, let us use this moment to redouble our efforts. It is not just about preserving a way of life or a local food system—it is about charting a course in pursuit of a livable future for ourselves, our neighbors, our communities, and for the generations to come.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Sources:
Point Reyes National Seashore Announces Revised Record of Decision for General Management Plan Amendment and Settlement Agreement on the Management of Ranching on Park Lands, National Park Service announcement, January 8, 2025.
Secret deal brokered by The Nature Conservancy to end ranching era in Point Reyes National Seashore faced opposition from outset, The Press Democrat, February 8, 2025.
Inside the secret Nature Conservancy deal to end ranching in Point Reyes National Seashore, The Press Democrat, January 29, 2025.
2025 Record of Decision: General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement: Settlement Agreement, Point Reyes National Seashore, National Park Service website, January 8, 2025.
Historic Agreement on Cattle Ranching and Wildlife Management at Point Reyes National Seashore Ends Decades of Conflict, The Nature Conservancy announcement, January 9, 2025.
2021 Record of Decision: General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, Point Reyes National Seashore, National Park Service, September 13, 2021.
Reducing Cow Methane Emissions, Straus Family Creamery website.
Can Point Reyes National Seashore Support Wildlife and Ranching Amid Climate Change? Civil Eats, October 17, 2023.
Judge halts controversial fence removal in Point Reyes, SF Gate, December 10, 2024.
For an organization that purports to protect public health and the environment, Beyond Pesticides sure has served up a toxic stew of misinformation and lies about the recent Point Reyes National Seashore settlement and the improved ecological management that will result from the departure of the commercial ranches from our national park.
Let’s start with the fake news title of your February 26 article, “Historic Coexistence of Organic Agriculture and Nature Interrupted by Forced Farm Closures at Point Reyes National Seashore.” Not a single farm at Point Reyes was “forced” to close. The departing ranchers signed voluntary business transactions with The Nature Conservancy and took large cash payouts to voluntarily retire. Read the settlement, in which of the parties to the litigation (including the ranchers) agreed to the settlement and did so voluntarily to support the best outcome for themselves and their families. In fact, two of the ranching families at Point Reyes and all seven of the ranching families at Golden Gate National Recreation Area chose not to take the buyouts and are continuing ranching, securing 20-year lease/permits and long-term security for their ranch operations. So, in fact no one was forced to close their business. Demonstrably false.
Without any evidence, your article states “local farming practices that will be terminated ultimately provide ecosystem benefits that are compatible with environmental conservation.†You claim that departure of the commercial ranches from the park will have “extreme long-term negative impacts on the environment.†False. The commercial ranching operations had well-documented extreme long-term negative impacts on the environment, including chronic pollution of waterways, damage to endangered species habitats, spread of invasive weeds, and erosion. The ranches also spewed liquid manure throughout the park, annually mowed down nesting birds, illegally dumped toxics, and promoted killing tule elk inside a national park. The departure of the ranches will allow 17,000 acres of public land to be enhanced and restored for native wildlife and allow natural ecosystem processes to return.
These fraudulent allegations that removal of commercial ranches will harm the environment supposedly comes from “environmental advocates.” This is also false. Actual environmental advocates and ecologists all agree that the removal of the ranching operations will improve environmental conditions dramatically. But you did not bother to talk with or get any statements from actual conservationists or scientists or ecologists for your article, rather, every single quote and assertion is from commercial ranchers, commercial ag interests, and anti-public lands advocates.
The article keeps up a steady pace of misinformation, claiming that the establishment of Point Reyes National Seashore allowed existing ranches to continue operating, which is partly true. In fact, the Point Reyes Act allowed for up to 25-year ranching leases but expressly did not “guarantee†continued ranching or that those leases would be renewed or extended. It allowed the Park Service to not renew the leases and it certainly allowed the ranchers to decide not to renew their leases, which is exactly what has happened with the settlement agreement.
Your article repeats claims about a “lack of transparency†in the negotiation process and the settlement agreement. As is typical of lawsuit mediation processes, the parties entered into a confidentiality agreement to facilitate candid discussions about complex issues. Without the confidentiality protections that mediation offers, a resolution to the litigation that benefits all parties would not have been possible.
Your article makes the wild assertion that “unlike all other NPS planning processes, local stakeholders—including farmworkers and local business owners whose livelihoods will be decimated—were not invited to participate.†This is so obviously false. The Park Service undertook three public environmental review processes, with the 2014-2016 Ranch Management Plan, the 2016-2021 General Management Plan Amendment (GMPA), and the 2023-2024 Tomales Point Plan. There was robust public engagement, with over 12,000 comment letters and six public meetings during the planning process for the GMPA alone. The public had 10 years of opportunities to comment, including on six different management options during the GMPA for the future management of park lands currently leased for ranching. During these multiple public processes, there was unprecedented public engagement. The inconvenient truth: more than 90% of the public that participated wanted the commercial ranches removed, and wanted elk and wildlife protected.
Your most insulting and manipulative claim is that “local indigenous representatives of the Miwok tribe protested their lack of inclusion.†This is a lie. The Coast Miwok, and the entire rest of the public, were in fact excluded before our lawsuits and settlement, due to a backroom attempt by the Park Service and ranchers from 2014-2016 to push through an illegal plan to extend and expand commercial ranching. The Miwok tribe did not protest the settlement. The Coast Miwok Tribal Council of Marin actually came out in formal opposition to the plan to prioritize cattle ranching and kill tule elk at Point Reyes, and is supportive of the settlement.
Your article is short on science or ecological principles. Unnamed fake conservationists are supposed to be concerned that once the tule herd is free from competition with cattle, they may “quickly exceed the land’s ability to support them†due to the supposed absence of natural predators. The only instance of this expansion of elk beyond carrying capacity was on Tomales Point, where a fence erected to benefit private ranchers trapped elk unnaturally on a peninsula that did not have adequate water and forage to support elk during extended drought, causing massive die-offs of the trapped elk. This unnatural situation is now remedied by the removal of the Tomales Point fence, allowing elk to roam free, behave naturally, and move around to find forage and water. Absolutely no scientists, ecologists or elk experts are suggesting that Point Reyes elk will reach or exceed carrying capacity in Point Reyes National Seashore anytime in the foreseeable future. And there are actually mountain lions at Point Reyes, which are a natural elk predator.
In the same vein, you claim that the lease buyout and new park management plan will not “clean up the waterways†or “manage the grasslands to keep them from becoming a fire hazard.†This is expressly false. The new management leases for the former ranchlands expressly and explicitly do exactly those two things, improve water quality and manage for fire risk. The restorations leases will also improve native plants, restore coastal native grasslands, reduce non-native vegetation, improve riparian and watershed function, reduce soil erosion, improve wildlife habitat, maintain Historic Districts and cultural resources, provide public access and enjoyment. They will provide immense ecological restoration and public benefit. It seems that Beyond Pesticides has not actually read the settlement agreement or the revised management plan, nor done any research at all on what the settlement actually entails but instead is just parroting false talking points from commercial ag interests who want to privatize public lands.
Your article accepts dubious carbon neutral ranching claims as gospel. The livestock industry loves to spread myths about cattle and soil carbon, but none of the claims are proven and all are contrary to scientific evidence. Peer-reviewed publications have determined that all of the major carbon sequestration and ecological benefit claims of so-called “regenerative ranching†are unfounded. Cattle and the ranching operations are proven however to be the biggest greenhouse gas pollution emitter in the National Seashore, far more than cars. It is irresponsible to promote fake and unproven scam climate solutions.
One more easily disprovable lie in your article is the claim that the Park Service will “abandon 77 historic ranch buildings.†Please take the time to actually read the revised management plan. It will maintain all historic ranch buildings. Some of them will be repurposed for employee housing, restoration and conservation operations, educational and historical interpretive programs, and nonprofit activities.
Your fawning article closes by gushing about “certified organic and Animal Welfare Approved” ranching facilities and characterizing dairy operators as “artisanal cheese visionaries.” That’s one lens, but you could just as easily view them as chronic-polluting, lease-violating, endangered species habitat-damaging, invasive weed-spreading, environment-wrecking, public land-hating, promoters of elk murder.
February 26th, 2025 at 12:13 pmJeff,
I will respond to your email in categories of concerns that you have raised. I will say first, though, that we may have divergent views on some of these issues, but I believe that your views should be fairly captured in a piece like the one we published. While we like to find common ground and have done so on many issues with CBD over the years, that may not always be the case. Nevertheless, our goal is to provide an honest and fact-based assessment of the various issues on which we report. We do this through the voices and findings of others conveying positions that are guided by the values and principles that we share on the protection of the environment, public health, and justice. At the same time, we feel that people are best informed when they are aware of all sides of an issue, which makes them stronger advocates for the solution that they are advancing. Obviously, in this case you feel that our coverage did not fairly or adequately convey your positions and that certainly was not our intent.
We take our communications with the public and our network seriously and welcome substantive criticism, so I’m happy to address the issues you raise. For context, in case you do not have our background, it may be helpful to know that Beyond Pesticides grew out of the struggle of farmworkers and family farmers poisoned by pesticides and the lack of protection afforded them by the laws that govern the registration and use of these chemicals. After working on the development of the EPA farmworker protection rule and launching campaigns to ban organochlorines, we began working to advance foundational change in how land is managed. Our program has always focused on protecting ecosystems in the context of strategies for holistic change. We worked to start the low-input sustainable agriculture program (now SARE) at USDA and then the Organic Foods Protection Act (OFPA) to develop standards of production and processing that eliminate the reliance on all toxic pesticides. This history informs the approach to our coverage of Point Reyes. Our experience informs our perspective and mission to find a path forward where agriculture can co-exist and respect the ecosystems in which they function and can continuously reevaluate and enhance biodiversity. Our program is focused on eliminating petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use, which contributes to the existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises.
With this background, I will address the categories of concerns you raise, starting with the big issues and then returning to some of the word choices that you feel are inaccurate and misleading.
Science on managing land on Point Reyes
Our article explains that the settlement will open up 16,000 acres of ranch land for the tule elk to be managed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in a co-management agreement with Point Reyes National Seashore. In the article, we cite concerns about the removal of the ranches quoting a long-term donor to TNC, Liebe Patterson, who said: “[M]y concern was, [the settlement] doesn’t take care of the problems. It just removes the ranchers from the seashore. It doesn’t clean up the waterways. It doesn’t manage the grassland to keep them from becoming a fire hazard. It was just to buy out the leases.†We could have included a section of a Civil Eats article in which the reporter writes: “[E]meritus professor Reginald H. Barrett from the University of California, Berkeley, told Civil Eats that the agency must continue managing the elk—even in a hypothetical scenario where the fence comes down and all ranching stops. In that case, he said, the seashore might support 5,000 elk, but only if prescribed burning maintains the grasslands. The cows keep the grasslands now. ‘The natural successional pattern for that land out there—all that land that’s now grazed—is it goes from grassland to coastal scrub, which is what we call the bush lupine, coyote brush, things like that,’ Barrett said. ‘If it was solid coastal scrub, the elk [wouldn’t] do well . . . So, unless you burn it, eventually the carrying capacity for elk is going to slowly but surely go down.’â€
And because we are thinking holistically, we, like others referenced in our article are concerned that current policies that fail to preserve farmland in a responsible way are contributing to the loss of family farms and contributing to larger more hazardous industrial farming operations. This is what we meant when we stated that the removal of the Point Reyes farms adversely affects the environment. I’m guessing that you don’t consider Albert Strauss an environmentalist because he runs a dairy, but in that same Civil Eats piece he said, “By getting rid of these small family farms, we’re forcing dairy farms to get bigger and bigger and the whole food system to be less environmentally friendly and produce lower-quality food that’s not organic.†He continues, “I think this could be the demise of our farming and food system.†I know that Albert (and his mother before him) is committed to the local environment and continuous improvement of farming operations to operate in sync with nature.
And to put a point on this, we quoted Andy Naja-Riese, director of the Agricultural Institute of Marin (AIM), who said, “The farmers and ranchers and farmworkers and the people who grow our food are environmentalists, and we need to start a conversation about agriculture environmentalism.†We do not want to dismiss AIM, which brings farmers and consumers together at farmers markets with a vision that states, “We envision a responsible food and farming system that is environmentally beneficial, economically viable, and socially just.†This is what we are striving for.
And, while we cited the Marin Conservation League (MCL) as a supporter of Point Reyes’ ranchers, we did not include their previous comments on the role of cattle and dairy ranching “as a component of the Seashore’s (and Golden Gate National Recreation Area’s) cultural and natural resource values.†MCL says, “This role has been acknowledged over the past fifty years in legislative authorizations, amendments and clarifications, and management policies. The NPS’ working relationship with the ranches in the park was fostered by early park administration, which recognized that cows and cattle were “comanagers†of the scenic pastoral grassland landscape that would devolve into brush without a regular grazing regime.â€
You state that we shouldn’t accept the “dubious carbon neutral ranching claims.†Here again, we are citing the important and exciting work, not to be dismissed or minimized, of the Marin Carbon Project and the Marin Resource Conservation District, the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, who are collaborating on cutting edge work to manage carbon. Yes, we write about those who are developing “carbon farm plans†to address the urgency of the climate crisis, while supporting a local food system and local economy. Our article reports on what is going on in Marin that may be providing a roadmap for the future and we believe it should be reported widely. We do not believe, as you have written to us on carbon farming, that we are “irresponsible to promote fake and unproven scam climate solutions.†However, like you (I think this is what you’re saying), we are skeptical of those who self-label their operations as “regenerative†or “sustainable†without any clear definition, which is why we advance organic practices that are codified in OFPA. I disagree with your apparent dismissiveness of organic and consider the value of the environmental, public health, farmworker, farm, and consumer community who are investing in soil-based agriculture that supports microbiological life in the soil to cycle nutrients naturally, yielding resilient plants without petrochemical fertilizers or biosolids. We recognize that organic is not perfect, but it far exceeds chemical-intensive systems of land management regulated by ineffective risk mitigation measures that put the ecosystems and public health under daily assault.
Challenging Process
We recognize that the process by which decisions are made in settlement agreements is difficult for those who are not in the room, but are affected by the outcome. So, it is not surprising that the agreement has been characterized as “secret†by the Press Democrat. While those affected certainly had an opportunity participate in the public health process, the Press Democrat reported that the majority of those at a meeting with Rep. Jared Huffman on Jan. 11 “were angry they were excluded from three years of closed-door talks and a final agreement.†Our article reflects what was reported, citing Jasmine Bravo. We cite the Civil Eats article, which points out issues that the Coast Miwok Tribal Council of Marin has with the plan.
As is true with many settlements, some of the parties feel that they do not have a choice or, if they do not take what is being offered, they will be left with nothing. Kenny Lunny, a third generation rancher, who also spoke at the Jan. 11 meeting, said: “But when it came to mediation, and we saw, you know, I have very strict guardrails and a muzzle on what I can and can’t say, and I think everybody knows that, and we agreed to it, okay? And I think Michael said it, well, it became an untenable situation. It became a time when we realized that our choice is if we don’t agree to the settlement, we continue with litigation, and we are absolutely in a minority in that litigation, and it could have ended very badly.†We used the word “forced†in the headline of our article because we were feeling the pain of Mr. Lunny’s decision with what he said was “the deepest sorrow you could ever imagine.â€
Other facts or characterizations that you question
On the matter of a “guarantee†of continued leasing to the ranchers, our article does not report that. The article simply mentions the 20-year leases in 2020 that were challenged by the litigation. The Civil Eats article also describes the leases and the legal battle that challenged the leases or called them into question.
You question our reference to 77 historic ranch buildings that would be abandoned. Quoting from the General Management Plan Amendment Revised Record of Decision, January 2025, the document says, “Within Point Reyes, and the Point Reyes Peninsula Dairy Ranches Historic District, 11 ranch complexes containing 77 contributing buildings will become vacant once commercial operations cease.â€
We can go through other representations that I may have missed in our article that are referred to as “lies.†But, nothing stood out as a “lie†to us.
Moving Forward
As mentioned in my previous email, we are open to having further conversation on a follow-up article that might provide more discussion of the basis of the litigation, the settlement process, and the final outcome. I would propose a piece that provided the space for your views on the substance of the issues alongside the perspective of others in the community. I do not know if the settlement agreement allows the ranchers to discuss the matter in this type of format, but it would be good to get their perspective, as well as some of the agriculture and land conservation groups.
I hope there is an opportunity to get beyond this specific piece and share perspectives as we move forward during this critical time.
Thank you.
Jay
Jay Feldman | Executive Director
February 27th, 2025 at 12:19 pmBeyond Pesticides
I cannot believe that people who made fortunes on sweetheart landuse giveaways can keep complaining. I would not join your organization, because with your stated view it seems a faux environmental organization.
February 26th, 2025 at 10:28 pmI have been following this issue closely for more than a decade, and this article is full of inaccuracies. Completely one-sided. This is not journalism, it’s embarrassing. I think you should take this down until you’ve done a modicum of research.
February 27th, 2025 at 12:57 amAs a scientist with over 130 peer-reviewed scientific publications and a California resident who has visited Point Reyes National Seashore since tule elk were translocated there in 1978, I was shocked by the misinformation in your article. Importantly, PRNS is the ONLY PARK in the world with breeding land mammal megafauna (elk) and marine mammal megafauna (elephant and harbor seals). Secondly, I remember the first buyout of the ranchers in the 1960s and 1970s. Now they are taking repeat buyouts a second time for the same lands. Sweet deal. This time the money is not from public funds but private (The Nature Conservancy), costing taxpayers nothing. The California Coastal Commission refused to approve PRNS water quality plan a couple years back when 31% of sample collected from 24 sites tested had such high levels of E. coli from cow manure that they exceeded health standards. Lastly, the revenue opportunities from wildlife viewing for this one of a kind in the world park are potentially tremendous. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2011 survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation in California documented that public non-consumptive appreciation of wildlife led to $3.8
February 27th, 2025 at 3:56 pmbillion in revenues, in addition to $964 million of spending by hunters. The Nature Conservancy’s $34 million payment to ranchers is a gift to all visitors to the Park, now and through the future.
“Coexistence of Organic Agriculture and Nature”? Anyone who claims that grazing cattle and nature can coexist either doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or they’re lying. Cattle grazing is one of the great harms that humans are doing to the Earth for so many reasons that I’m not going to list any of them. Read Sacred Cows at the Public Trough or Welfare Ranching if you want details. Suffice to say that non-native animals like cattle do great harm to native ecosystems and the life there, and because cattle are so large and heavy, and there are so many of them, the damage they do is immense. Pt. Reyes was no exception, and now with the cattle gone hopefully the land, elk, and other native life can recover.
February 28th, 2025 at 2:16 amThe above picture of a few cows grazing on green grassy pastures is misleading and can only exist briefly. As a hiker in Pt. Reyes, those pastures are more often than not muddy fields with plentiful manure and a lot more cows. A couple of years ago the National Park Service reported that two thirds of greenhouse gas emission in the park and nearly 5 percent emissions for Marin County were the result of cattle and dairy ranches. In addition the NPS reported excessive bacteria from cattle waste in Seashore creeks. In contrast, the Tule Elk reside on their natural habitat with very little impact. Once again, hikers can observe the elk quietly living throughout the landscape, blending in and providing
February 28th, 2025 at 3:42 pmenjoyment and interest for the visitors to this wonderful park. Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer fought hard to establish this wonderful park back in the 70’s. Pt. Reyes is much loved and appreciated. To have fenced in a herd of Tule Elk, causing many of them a slow and agonizing death from lack of water and the inability to forage freely is beyond infuriating. Environmental organizations along with outpouring sentiment from the public finally have successfully freed the elk from their cruel enclosures. The Nature Conservancy has paid the ranchers for this final end of a decades battle between Pt. Reyes advocates and Cattle Ranchers in a deal that should bring this conflict to an end. As a long time resident of Marin and of Sonoma, for me, Pt. Reyes is a Crown Jewel in our park system.
Please remove this “article.” It is not FACT CHECKED AND REPEATS DANGEROUS LIES.
March 5th, 2025 at 1:02 pmhttps://www.thewildlifenews.com/2025/03/08/point-reyes-myths-the-settlement/
March 8th, 2025 at 10:13 pm