After years of public outcry and several lawsuits from grassroots environmental groups, Point Reyes National Seashore is finally shedding (most of) its commercial ranching operations. Although long-overdue and less than fully comprehensive, a settlement between plaintiffs, the National Park Service, and the ranchers themselves was announced in early January of this year.
The plaintiffs in the case were the Center for Biological Diversity, the Resource Renewal Institute, and the Western Watersheds Project, and they were represented by Advocates for the West. Intervening in the case was The Nature Conservancy, which bankrolled buy-outs of the leaseholders for a reported $30 to $40 million.
As a result of the settlement, all but two cattle operations in Point Reyes will close down within 15 months, and more than 16,000 acres will be re-zoned from commercial beef or dairy operations into “scenic landscape,” which prohibits commercial livestock grazing, although some “conservation” grazing will be allowed. Further details of the settlement can be found on the websites of the plaintiff groups.
Unfortunately, since the settlement announcement, a disinformation campaign has swung into gear, in an apparent effort by unknown parties to discredit the deal. “Influencers” across social media seem to have a newfound interest in the Seashore, characterized by identical, false soundbites. It is not surprising, since commercial ranching in Point Reyes has always been bolstered by persistent myths and a veneer of tradition, obscuring impacts and subsidies from the taxpayer. Here is a sampling of false statements and anti-commonwealth dog whistles being pushed through social media channels with obvious coordination.
“The settlement is a ‘land grab’ by the Federal Government”. You can’t grab land you already own. The National Park Service bought this land in the 1960s and 70s. Former owners were paid an independently-determined fair market value, the equivalent of approximately $400 million in adjusted numbers. There is no legal requirement for NPS to continue the leases.
A related false claim is that the ranchers were “forced” to leave. As a matter of public record, the ranchers who are leaving Point Reyes voluntarily entered into settlement talks, and voluntarily signed settlement agreements, voluntarily accepting millions of dollars in return for pulling up stakes. If what is being said is there was pressure for them to accept the deal, that may be true, just as there was pressure for the plaintiffs to accept the deal. The plaintiffs contended that ranching at Point Reyes violated several laws, including the Organic Act and the Clean Water Act, and the nature of a negotiated settlement is that all sides find it in their best interest to make a deal. If the ranchers wanted to take their chances in court, they were quite free to do so.
In fact, two operations declined to participate in the settlement and will receive new leases from NPS.
“No environmental degradation has been proven.” There are numerous studies and ecological surveys showing the opposite as true, the most prominent being an Environmental Impact Statement done by the Park Service in 2019, scientifically documenting degradation and impacts to air, water, soil, vegetation, and wildlife in the Seashore. Water quality studies done by Turtle Island Restoration Network and carried out by volunteers showed off-the-charts E coli and other dangerous contaminants.
Some posters are saying, specifically, “Environmental damage wasn’t proven in court.” This actually is true, simply because the case was settled out of court. But it’s an obvious purposeful attempt to obscure the fact that environmental damage was proven elsewhere.
During the negotiations, the ranchers were placed under a “gag order.” No, they were not. A gag order is a judge’s command that a case may not be discussed in public. What did happen was that ranchers, and, in fact, all parties to the negotiations, voluntarily entered into a confidentiality agreement over the course of the talks. Posters who say this conveniently leave out that all parties agreed to secrecy, in an apparent effort to paint the ranchers as victims bullied by the process.
Prior to the voluntary talks, there were years of public process and debate, during which, the large majority of the public was in favor of removing ranching, freeing elk, and restoring the Seashore.
“These are Straus Farms.” In an apparent attempt to leverage the generally good reputation of Straus Family Creamery, social media posters have written “these are Straus Farms,” “most of these are Straus Farms,” and even, “all of these Straus Farms.” It’s not true. None of the dairies and ranches shutting down are operated by Straus. Straus does buy milk from two dairies that are shutting down — or did, one of them already shut down (voluntarily) a few years ago — but they are independently run. Even if they were Straus operations, that would not change the documented record of pollution and lease violations.
The settlement was bankrolled by developers. Posters have written things like, “They are property developers trying to push farmers out in favor of Eco-Tourism.” They are not. They are grassroots, member-funded environmental groups trying to rehabilitate a national park in the midst of the climate and extinction crises. Furthermore, no “development” can happen in this National Seashore. If what is being alleged is the settlement was backed by developers trying to capitalize on development near Point Reyes, no evidence has been offered (as with these other false claims) and the Seashore already receives more than 2 million visitors annually.
“Powerful environmental groups sued the ranchers to get a payday.”
First, environmental groups sued the National Park Service, not the ranchers. Second, the plaintiffs are grassroots, member-supported organizations. Third, none of the groups were compensated in any way; they were not reimbursed for staff time, filing fees, or any court costs. The lawyers on the case, from Advocates for the West, worked 100% pro bono. The only people who got paid were the departing ranchers.
“Ranching is good for the environment and suppresses fire risk.” This claim is normally accompanied by some amount of unreferenced sustain-a-babble. In actual fact, as mentioned above, these operations are shown as degrading the environment in Point Reyes. Furthermore, livestock emissions account for 13.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. It’s never a good sign when the problem is suggested as the solution. It may be true that certain management activities will be warranted to combat invasive weeds, which are known to be associated with cattle ranching, which is a vector for European grasses, thistles, and other nuisance plants.
“This deal will move production to factory farms.” In the first place, organic milk is overproduced. Additionally, much of the rest of Marin and Sonoma Counties is ranch lands. The percentage of output from Point Reyes is quite small, somewhere around one percent of the output from those two counties. Lastly, many of the operators in Point Reyes have operations nearby elsewhere. Clearly, one can be concerned with factory farms without supporting taxpayer subsidy of pollution of a National Park.
“Someone involved is doing this to sell carbon credits.” The federal government doesn’t sell carbon credits on National Park Service land. Period. Nor does it have a program related to coastal prairie, the historical habitat type in the Point Reyes pasture lands.
“The lawsuits were funded by Bill Gates or some other behind-the-scenes billionaire.” This is another bald claim lacking evidence and motivation. Again, the groups who pressed the lawsuit are member-funded.
“The local Native American Tribe is against the settlement.” On the contrary, the federally recognized Indigenous group, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, are officially recognized co-stewards of the revised management plan.
“Ranch workers have been forgotten.” In fact, the plaintiffs and the National Park Service worked during the settlement to include severance packages from the ranches, allocate additional funds ($2.5 million) and services, and create transition support services and timelines. Furthermore, many ranch workers have lived in substandard housing with little job security for decades. It is ironic that some opposition to the settlement is calling for intervention from the Trump administration, when there is reason to believe some of the ranch workers are undocumented, and may well be brought into harm’s way by that possibility.
“This will ruin the local economy.” Ranching represents a tiny portion of the area’s economy, and is actually dwarfed by eco-tourism, which stands to increase with better trails, less barbed wire and manure, and increased habitat and wildlife.
Summary: Whereas honest disagreement and debate are to be welcomed, unscrupulous disinformation campaigns are not. Just where all these concoctions came from is unclear. But it’s amply apparent that someone unhappy with the settlement is making a coordinated effort to discredit it. The false narrative of “small, sustainable farms displaced by monied interests” is much more accurately restated as, “with help from grassroots environmental groups, the National Park Service finally comes around to ending compulsory taxpayer subsidy of environmental pollution in the National Seashore.”
Leave a Reply