Anti-ranch activists are misleading the public

The Resource Renewal Institute claims that the public is overwhelmingly in agreement with its position that ranching should be eliminated from the Point Reyes National Seashore, based on the number of anti-ranch comments received about the Seashore’s draft environmental impact statement (“Point Reyes report: Public backs elk over ranchers,” April 24).

RRI fails to mention that those anti-ranch comments are the result of its own directmail campaign. Sensationalized emails were sent to targeted mailing lists asking the recipient to click a link to echo the message. This automated process ensures large numbers for RRI press releases.

It also drowns out the voices of the hundreds of substantive, individual public comments in support of agriculture.

Take for example the letter from Dr. Stephanie Larson. As a certified rangeland manager, as well as a livestock and range management farm adviser for UC Cooperative Extension, Larson is an expert in the area being studied. Larson says the Seashore’s draft “noticeably lacks the scientific basis for the implementation of new practices to better manage the natural resources at Point Reyes.”

For example, there is no scientific basis for the proposed sub-zones. Removing managed grazing from Point Reyes will cause the invasion of brush, risking massive wildfires.

The plan for managing the elk is inadequate — the preferred alternative calls for hazing (habitat development and fencing), which does not work. Larson’s nine-page letter points out the many ecological benefits of grazing, and provides peer-reviewed evidence to back it up. Larson also objects, as many of us do, to the Seashore’s lack of consideration of the economic and social value of family farms in Marin County.

These facts are what’s important. Not the number of clicks on a website. The public is being misled by anti-agriculture activists using deceptive methods to push their agenda.

— Sarah Rolph, Carlisle (Massachusetts)