Debunking the Myths of Private Ranching in Point Reyes National Seashore

Diplomat Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” There is no shortage of opinions on ranching in Point Reyes National Seashore, but there is a shortage of durable facts.

Please join us on Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 6:00 pm PST to learn from numerous subject matter experts what is fact and what is fiction regarding various issues related to the Point Reyes story, from the early legislation, to the environmental and wildlife impact of ranching on these public lands, the economics, the lack of involvement of not only the Coast Miwok Tribe, but also the lack of consideration of the public at large. The goal of this webinar is to inform the public of the facts, to challenge the unsupported and disingenuous, to disqualify stubborn, easily repeated obfuscations, and to fish out red herrings from the waters of debate. The webinar will conclude with a practical vision for restoration of the area.

The park service was sued in February of 2016, and in the settlement was compelled to produce an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and update its management plan for ranching at Point Reyes. The draft plan was released in August 2019, public comments collected, and a final plan published in September of last year. The EIS includes six management options, including Alternative B which extends 20-year leases to the ranches and expands and diversifies their permitted commercial activities, and Alternative F, which phases out all ranches and dairies over five years. Alternative B is identified as “preferred” by the NPS and is favored by the ranching community, whereas Alternative F is supported by various citizen and environmental groups. The final decision is due by July 14, 2021, per the court, and ahead of this, citizens and environmental groups are struggling to block or slow what by now seems inexorable.

About a third of the seashore is dedicated to commercial ranches and dairies, whose future is being adjudicated right now by the National Park Service via an ostensibly public process. Should they stay or should they go?