Historic: At Long Last, Ranchers Agree to Hang up Hats, Vacate Point Reyes National Seashore in Landmark Multi-Party Deal (Tule Elk Wars Pt. 2)

(EnviroNews Nature) — Inverness, California — Finally, it is coming to an end. “It” being the most hotly contested wildlife and public lands battle the country has seen since the spotted owl pitted the logging industry against environmentalists in the late 1980s. In a landmark agreement made official on Jan. 8, 2025, the Department of the Interior (DOI/Interior), its underlying agency the National Park Service (NPS), the Point Reyes Seashore Ranching Association, other ranching families, Native American tribes, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), the Nature Conservancy (NC), and three prominent environmental orgs that had sued the federal government, all agreed to end the standoff in the Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS/the Seashore/the park). The result: 12 cattle ranches that had been occupying around one-third of the park will be shuttered for good, fences and infrastructure will be removed and the pastoral zone remediated and restored to its natural state.

As part of a separate move by NPS that happened in December, the 2.2 mile-long, dreaded “elk fence” that had cordoned a herd of rare tule elk (Cervus canadensis nannodes) into a small peninsula since 1978 is also expected to be fully removed, allowing the creatures to roam free and giving cause for celebration to animal rights fighters and ordinary citizens alike.

“This settlement is a major win for tule elk and Point Reyes’ environment, wildlife and native plants,” said Jeff Miller, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity in a press release. “I’m proud of what this collective agreement has accomplished and I’m looking forward to the improved management approach it can usher in. This is a historic opportunity to expand elk herds, restore coastal prairie habitats, and protect endangered species.”

PERSPECTIVE: THE HISTORIC MAGNITUDE OF THE 2025 POINT REYES AGREEMENT (THIS IS BIG)

The Editors at EnviroNews didn’t approve the opening sentence of this article and the comparison to the spotted owl lightly. EnviroNews has covered countless imperiled wildlife sagas and was the leading investigative news agency covering the greater sage grouse — the costliest and most expansive endangered species battle the world has ever seen. But even though the sage grouse saga was loaded with lawsuits, corruption and sleazy political maneuvering, the issue rarely erupted into public protest; certainly it never led to a community up in arms with proverbial pitchforks ready to burn down lawmakers, chop down fences, shut down ranching operations and defy Department of Interior officials — all in a passionate effort to save a wildlife population and restore public lands to their original state. But that’s exactly what’s been going down in the Point Reyes National Seashore for the past decade — and for some committed eco warriors, much longer. Today, that long battle is all but over.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND

Signed into law by President John F. Kennedy in 1962 the PRNS is the West Coast’s only national seashore, and it is unique in that it was forged by way of the government acquiring private lands — a handful of cattle ranching operations established in the mid-1800s to be more specific. The cattlemen were paid fair market value for their properties and given Residential Use of Occupancy (RUO) permits — in most cases giving them twenty years (in some cases longer) to wind down their operations and hit the trail. But that never happened. Instead, they took to the lobby, gathered up political influence with lawmakers and park officials, which they in-turn used to obtain and renew five-year special-use lease extensions allowing them to continue operating and running livestock in the park — something that has peeved local residents, nature lovers, animal rights activists and park-goers for years.

PRNS holds many natural wonders, but it also famously the largest remaining stronghold for the tule elk — a species of “dwarf” elk endemic to California — and a species that dipped so far into the extinction vortex that numbers plummeted below 20 animals by 1870. Exactly how low is not known, but according to Wikipedia, the species was thought “extirpated” and was only brought back from the brink when “a single breeding pair discovered in the tule marshes of Buena Vista Lake in the southern San Joaquin Valley.”

Once totaling more than half-a-million specimens, in 2024 the species hovers at less than one percent of its historic numbers, yet receives no protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA/the Act).

Tule Elk Bull of the Limantour Herd — Video: Dakota Otero, for: EnviroNews

In 2016 a coalition of three environmental non-profits sued the Interior for violations of the Point Reyes Act (a.ka. Public Law 87-657) and the Organic Act of 1916 — the governing legislation that established the National Park System and the National Park Service and defined their missions. Within a couple years, the case had worked its way through the courts, and as a result, NPS would have to update its 1998 Tule Elk General Management Plan (GMP). From there, the saga mushroomed into what EnviroNews has named its investigative series: the Tule Elk Wars. That names speaks for itself and is by no means an exaggeration.

THE LAWSUITS: PARK SERVICE SUED LEFT, RIGHT AND CENTER BY A PLETHORA OF PLAINTIFFS

DOI/NPS’s adoption of Alternative B and their continued support of ranching in the park has been so controversial that the agency has been perpetually mired in controversy and lawsuits.  Nearly every time Point Reyes NPS makes a major move it winds up getting sued on something by somebody. In dealing with this, shall we say unique NPS unit, EnviroNews — a long-standing member of the Department of Interior press core — has heard “we can’t comment on pending litigation” to such an extent, that attempting to obtain substantive information from this NPS unit has become all but futile. Perhaps Point Reyes NPS temporarily forgot it’s the taxpayer who is paying the legal bills.

The 2016 lawsuit ultimately catalyzed the current-day saga. The action was was filed jointly by the Center for Biological Diversity (the Center), Western Watersheds Project (WWP) and Resource Renewal Institute (RRI). It was this joint suit that ultimately led to an environmental review as laid out and governed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The same trio sued again in 2022 after DOI adopted its preferred Alternative B as their plan to update the Tule Elk General Management Plan (more on that later).

It’s relevant to point out that the Interior Department is certainly aware of what it’s up against with these plaintiffs. Both the Center and WWP boast over a 90 percent success rate when suing the federal government in wildlife and environmental cases, while the Center was part of what is considered the the most monumental Endangered Species Act settlement in history when, alongside WildEarth Guardians, the NGO pressured the government into protecting some 800 wildlife species under the Act after a decade-long battle. The Center also claims to have protected wildlife habitat larger than “twice the size of California.”

These epic wildlife and environmental lawsuits waged by the Center, WWP, and a few noteworthy others, can drag on for years on end and burn enormous amounts of cash on both sides. While the coalition of three was certainly willing to take it all the way in court with high confidence, reps from these orgs tell EnviroNews they are pleased with the deal overall, pointing to the alternative (years and years of costly court battles, followed by an unknown outcome).

But the two major suits filed by the aforementioned trio certainly aren’t the only legal complaints waged against NPS in the Tule Elk Wars, not at all. NPS has been sued by Harvard Law, private citizens, filmmakers, other animal rights groups and even Peter Byrne, a local gumshoe investigative reporter who is putting the screws to NPS for alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

A PUBLIC OUTRAGED: ONE OF THE MOST OVERWHELMINGLY LOPSIDED PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS EVER SEEN

From the beginning, a few question EnviroNews has been asking: Is this actually the people’s park? Does the the public’s opinion even matter in how PRNS should be managed?

When an environmental review period is ordered by the courts, under NEPA, the agency must complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) and as part of that must open a public comment period to inform the process. That happened in the Point Reyes case as well, as NPS drafted six alternative draft plans (A-F) that offered different revamps of the 1998 Tule Elk General Management Plan.

While Alternative F proposed an all-out removal of ranching activities in the park, Alternative B was considered the most “draconian” as it proposed doling out 20-year leases to the ranchers and maintaining the two free-roaming elk herds to minimal numbers by actually killing animals off if necessary.

Though the draft plans were cooked under Donald Trump/David Bernhardt/Margaret Everson, NPS’s decision spanned over into the newly appointed Biden Interior Department. At the time, the elktivists were riding high and feeling hopeful that America’s first-ever Native American Cabinet member, Secretary Deb Haaland, would swoop in like Wonder Woman and save the day. But no. The entire protest movement was crushed when Biden-Haaland fell right in line with the Trump-Bernhardt plan and rolled right on through, adopting Alternative B and ignoring countless letters and pleas from the public.

Haaland even flat-out ignored the Coast Miwok Council of Marin. The Coast Miwok are known to be the most likely descendants (MLDs) of the land. Sources tell EnviroNews the Coast Miwok were also excluded from the recent backroom talks.

Though the Coast Miwok gain federal recognition through Graton Rancheria, Dean Hoaglin, Headman and Dance Captain of the Coast Miwok Tribal Council of Marin, made it clear that the Coast Miwok do not see eye-to-eye with Graton Rancheria on the subject of the Seashore.

When the public comment period was first opened, in a YouTube video, Point Reyes NPS Communications Director Melanie Gunn happily encouraged citizens to “get engaged and get involved.” But after the results came back and approximately 95 percent of the public espoused Alternative F (the polar opposite of NPS’s preferred Alternative B) and the removal of all ranching and infrastructure from the park, Gunn went to local media outlets saying the public comment period was “not a vote.”

Kevin Lunny, head of the Point Reyes Ranchers Association, took a similar viewpoint with EnviroNews, insisting in an on-camera interview that prefabbed form-letters should all be lumped together and only count as one comment because anybody who signed onto an auto-generated letter he said, failed to bring anything unique and informative to the process. People like Ken Bouley firmly disagree with that position.

Today, Bouley is the Executive Director of Turtle Island Restoration Network (TIRN) — a 501c3 already working hard to protect and restore the Seashore, but in 2020 he was a Senior Data Analyst for the Fair Isaac Corporation, a.k.a. FICO. Bouley put his skills to work and took a deep dive into the comments. The findings were revelatory to say the least. Out of 7,627 comments, less than five percent came back supporting the continuation of livestock operations in the park. But it mattered not, as NPS held strong to Alternative B and ranching on, nonetheless.

A larger set of public comments totaling around 45,000 came in from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and those results were even more lopsided suggesting that 99.5 percent of the public wanted the ranching operations completely removed and only 12 commenters (not a typo) spoke out in favor of allowing cattle operations to continue.

Today, people across the board fighting to re-wild PRNS are feeling a sense of satisfaction as most of the ranchers will be leaving, but it’s important to point out that it’s not because the National Park Service did the right thing; it’s because a private NGO, the Nature Conservancy, deemed the PRNS worthy of preserving and restoring and flat-out paid these cattlemen to pack it in and get the hell out.   

THE DEVIL’S IN THE DETAILS: BULLET POINTS OF THE DEAL

The historic multi-party deal was the culmination of not-so-secret “secret” closed-door talks that investigators at EnviroNews have been quietly keeping an eye on for months. The parties at the table included DOI/NPS, the ranchers (who intervened after the talks were underway), the aforementioned plaintiff environmental NGOs (the Center, WWP and RRI) and the Nature Conservancy. Congressman Jared Huffman, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and others took part in the backroom talks as intervenors or in unofficial capacities.

In the broader picture, it was the Nature Conservancy that stepped in to save the day in what had been a decade-long legal and political juggernaut, offering to fork over the cash and buy out the ranchers who were already paid “fair market value” for their properties when PRNS was first forged.

Considered “squatters” by many in the public, and being accused of already “double-dipping” into the tax coffers after they stayed in the park beyond their initial RUO agreements operating with below-market-value leases, these same cattlemen will now receive yet another buyout. While many see this payout as a “triple-dip,” Erik Molvar, Executive Director of the Western Watersheds Project reminded EnviroNews, “At least it’s not taxpayer money this time. If a private party with private money wants to buy these guys out, who am I to say anything about that?”

Below is a list of key item bullet points agreed to in the deal:

• a) 12 ranches in total will be removed: all six dairy operations and six out of eight beef ranches.
• b) 1337 beef cattle AUs will be removed from the Seashore.
• c) 3325 dairy cows to be removed from the Seashore and any further dairy activities will be prohibited.
• d) 16,756 acres in the pastoral zone will be returned to their natural state and rezoned as “scenic landscape” and shall contain no future commercial operations.
• e) Ranchers are to remove all fencing, trailers, ranch infrastructure and personal belongings with a priority on fence removal (some fencing can still be deployed for rotation grazing purposes).
• f) Ranches are to vacate the Seashore over a 15-month timeline.
• g) All elk in the Seashore will be allowed to roam unrestricted and will now be managed as one
  herd, whereafter, sub-herds may be identified.
• h) Plaintiffs agree to drop their lawsuit “with prejudice” after ranchers adhere to the 15-month timeframe and have vacated.
• i) Ranch operators will receive cash buyouts funded by the Nature Conservancy and will surrender all rights to remain or operate in the Seashore.
• j) The overall fund to be divvied out between the ranchers cumulatively, is purportedly between $30-40 million though this number is private and cannot be independently verified by EnviroNews.
• k) Of the aforementioned settlement money, $2.5 million is reserved to aid in the relocation of the roughly 75 resident ranch workers currently living in the park.
• l) In addition to the two remaining beef ranches, one other rancher (Niman) possesses a lifelong RUO and is unaffected by the settlement and will remain in place.
• m) NC will maintain the right to operate rotational grazing in the pastoral zone to help keep invasive plant species in check and to mitigate fire risk, but tule elk grazing shall be prioritized over the deployment of livestock. NC can run up to 1200 animal units (AU) for rotational grazing purposes, though 600 is what is “anticipated” according to sources close to the matter.
• n) NPS will issue an Revised Record of Decision (ROD) for its Tule Elk General Management Plan wherein it will clarify new trails and public access points within the pastoral zone. The ROD will also outline rotational grazing targets and AU number strategies. Any new fencing for rotational grazing purposes must be “wildlife friendly.”
• o) The two remaining beef ranches will be granted new 20-yr permits under the new ROD, but shall remain under strict AU allowances.
• p) The two remaining ranches will also be held to stricter erosion and water quality standards and will not be allowed to grow silage or spread manure.
• q) The two remaining ranches will have to implement raven control methods as livestock activities attract ravens which threaten the park’s snowy plover (Anarhynchus nivosus) population.

There are multiple other details to the plan and readers are encouraged to explore the NPS ROD in its entirety. On a side-note, there are also minor changes that will affect the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) — another nearby, frequently visited, National Park unit also established under the original 1962 legislation by way of private land acquisition.

THE WRITING WAS ON THE WALL; NPS WAS ALREADY TEARING THE CONTROVERSIAL ‘ELK FENCE’ DOWN

On December 4, 2024 in what was a historic and unexpected move, the Point Reyes NPS unit began tearing down the 2.2 mile-long, 8-ft-high elk fence that separates the ranchers from the Tule Elk Reserve — a fence so loathed by the animal rights community that in October of 2022 a fed up person even took it upon themselves to saw down a 100-ft stretch of the fence during the night. The person then wrote a “manifesto” and anonymously Tweeted at DOI/NPS and sent it to the media.

The infamous ‘elk fence’ in the Point Reyes National Seashore sawed down by protestor — Video: Dakota Otero, for: EnviroNews

In 2020-2021 the issue reached a tipping point when ongoing drought and fire conditions led to the death of around one-third of the Tomales Point Tule Elk Herd that lives behind the fence in what “elktivists” say is nothing more than an “elk zoo.”

A tule elk bull dies after becoming stuck in a mucky, dried-out water source — Photo: Matthew Polvorosa Klein

Things got heated after documentarians and photographers started posting pictures of elk dying around the Tomales Point Peninsula, getting stuck in mucky watering holes and succumbing to starvation and thirst in the brush. This sparked outrage and led to a fierce standoff between the elktivists and NPS resulting in repeated protests along the elk fence.

Things came to a climax at one point when group members were cited and fined by NPS officials for taking water and troughs out to the thirsty elk. But to the bewilderment of many, NPS officials dumped the water troughs, ticketed the advocates and stuck to their guns, only to reverse course shortly thereafter when public pressure mounted, then taking their own watering troughs to the dying elk. This blatant reversal move by Point Reyes NPS was interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing by many monitoring the situation.

At long last and after a never-ending barrage of public pressure, NPS decided to craft a secondary and separate management plan for only the Tomales Point area and the elk herd trapped behind the fence — a move that some have questioned the legality of. Nevertheless, on the morning of December 4, workers tore down around 850 feet of elk fence, opening the border and allowing the elk to readily leave the area — this, all before the multi-party agreement was even fully baked.

But only one day later, the cattlemen, represented by ranch-family lawyer Andrew Giacomini, intervened and filed an injunction, halting the fence removal work. Sources close to the issue tell EnviroNews this injunction should become a moot point in light of the agreement, and it would seem only logical that removal work on the elk fence can now proceed as planned. Another suit filed over the elk fence by TreeSpirit Founder Jack Gescheidt and animal welfare non-profit In Defense of Animals is also likely to resolve, but EnviroNews is unable to verify the official status of those lawsuits at this hour.

WHAT ABOUT THE TWO REMAINING RANCHES? WILL THE THE PUBLIC ACCEPT THEM STAYING?

EnviroNews spoke with multiple other stakeholders, prominent individuals and other environmental and animal rights organizations not included in the backroom talks, and if one thing seems certain, it’s that the future of the two remaining ranches in the Seashore is uncertain. One environmental leader told EnviroNews that many are not satisfied that beef ranching would still be taking place on several thousand acres but noted that the talks were fragile and that right now “nobody wants to piss in the punch bowl.”

The two ranches will be given 20-year leases at what critics say are “below market-value” rates. Critics also say the problem here is these kinds of terms are what created the whole kit-and-caboodle mess the Seashore is in today and that these ranches could try to root in beyond the 20-year period.

As part of the agreement, the Center, WWP and RRI agreed not to sue in the future over the ranchers staying behind, but can litigate on other issues should they emerge. But that certainly doesn’t stop others from attacking. It remains unknown whether any other parties or NGOs are set to go after NPS for the acreage remaining in an industrialized state.

Bouley told EnviroNews that for the time being Turtle Island Restoration Network would be focused on gathering volunteers to help re-wild and restore the Seashore.

WHAT COMES NEXT? HOW FAST WILL THE RANCHES REALLY BE GONE AND HOW?

As outlined in the agreement and mentioned above, the vacating ranches have 15 months to be out completely. Sources tell EnviroNews there is a structured payment plan in place and that checks shall only be dispersed from the Nature Conservancy when the ranchers hit certain benchmarks in the evacuation process.

Bouley made it clear that TIRN will be attempting to muster volunteers and render aid wherever possible. “Our group is prepared to roll up our sleeves, pull invasives, plant natives, and coil barbed wire,” he told EnviroNews. “And I would ask anyone who has followed this issue to reach out to support the efforts, either through our group or somewhere else.

CAN THE DEAL BE BLOWN UP BY THE INCOMING TRUMP ADMINISTRATION? SOME ARE WORRIED

Sources close to the issue who wished to remain anonymous as to not risk adversely affecting the outcome of the sensitive talks, admitted earlier to EnviroNews that there is definitely nervousness around the incoming Trump 2.0 Administration. These sources said there was a concerted effort to wrap this up and get the ink dry before Trump — and new Interior Department leadership along with him — takes over in just a couple weeks from now.

But Molvar rests a little easier telling EnviroNews he thinks many of the ranchers are happy with the deal and will not want to resist or blowup the payouts they’ll be getting. Time will tell, but all indications are that this deal is just that — a done deal — and that soon, park-goers can expect to see a pastoral zone at the Point Reyes National Seashore free of industrial cattle operations.

TAGS
1998 Tule Elk Management Plan, Alternative B, Alternative F, Anarhynchus nivosus, Animal Cruelty, Animal Rights, Animal Welfare, Buena Vista Lake, California Coastal Commission, Cattle Fencing, Cattle Grazing, Cattle Ranching, CCC, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Water Act, Coast Miwok, Coast Miwok Tribal Council of Marin, Dairy, Dairy Farm, David Bernhardt, Dean Hoaglin, Deb Haaland, Director Everson, Director Margaret Everson, DOI, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, EIS, Elk, Elk Fence, Endangered Species, Endangered Species Act, Environment, Environmental Impact Statement, Erik Molvar, ESA, Fair Isaac Corporation, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Fencing, FICO, FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, GGNRA, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Graton Rancheria, Grazing, Greater Sage Grouse, Harvard Law, In Defense of Animals, Interior, Jack Gescheidt, Jared Huffman, Jeff Miller, JFK, Joe Biden, John F. Kennedy, Ken Bouley, Kevin Lunny, Livestock, Livestock Fencing, Livestock Grazing, Livestock Ranching, Margaret Everson, Melanie Gunn, National Environmental Policy Act, National Park Service, National Park System, Nature, Nature and Wildlife, Nature Conservancy, NEPA, Northern Spotted Owl, NPS, Organic Act of 1916, Peter Byrne, Point Reyes, Point Reyes Act, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes National Seashore Ranching Association, President Biden, President Donald J. Trump, President Donald Trump, President Joe Biden, President John F. Kennedy, President Kennedy, President Trump, PRNS, Public Comment Period, Public Land, Public Lands, Public Law 87-657, Ranching, Representative Huffman, Representative Jared Huffman, Resource Renewal Institute, Rotational Grazing, RRI, Sage Grouse, San Joaquin Valley, Secretary Bernhardt, Secretary David Bernhardt, Secretary Deb Haaland, Secretary Haaland, Snowy Plover, Spotted Owl, TIRN, Tomales Point, Tomales Point Elk Reserve, Tomales Point Herd, Tomales Point Tule Elk Herd, TreeSpirit Project, Trump, Tule Elk, Tule Elk Management Plan, Tule Elk Reserve, Turtle Island Restoration Network, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. National Park Service, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Wildlife Friendly Fencing, WWP