Tone of editorial about elk favored Pt. Reyes ranchers

I was disappointed by the tone of the recent IJ editorial about the tule elk in Point Reyes National Seashore (“All must be part of discussion to remove Point Reyes elk fence,” June 26). Since it is true that the park is an important place for all stakeholders, I am writing on behalf of the tule elk.

From my perspective, the editorial implied that the elk may need to stay fenced in to prevent the spread of disease. That's misguided. Don't forget, Johne's disease spread from cows to the elk, not the reverse.

Private ranches cover about 137,000 acres of Marin County, so ranches in a national park seem unnecessary. Perpetual leases for ranchers in the seashore were not part of the original agreement when the national park was created. I was disappointed to read that the National Park Service's deal with the ranchers allows for new 20-year leases. The price appears too low and it guarantees that they can't be pushed out. The ranchers must have good lobbyists working in Congress.

I am disturbed by the marketing of “ranch culture” in the park while the Coastal Miwok native population has sparse allocation of land.

It should be noted that, in the past, some ranchers have earned violations by ignoring lease terms by illegally bulldozing waterways, allowing cattle to overgraze the land, creating toxic dumps and watching as human sewage spills. It's hard for me to believe that those ranchers have interest in cooperative stewardship. I think elected officials prefer to turn a blind eye, so as not to upset lobbyists.

How can the editorial board demand the “park involve stakeholders” without citing the recently released public survey? It includes over 5,000 responses, most demanding a return to the mission of “preserving the vanishing seashore and wildlife.”

The board appears to give privilege to a few dozen ranch lease “stakeholders.”