Point Reyes debate more than ‘philosophical’

In an article published in the IJ (“Suit targets elk, ranch plan,” Jan. 11), the Marin Conservation League’s Nona Dennis implies that our lawsuit is unwarranted, based on nothing more than “philosophical differences” about the future of ranching in Point Reyes National Seashore.

In fact, the complaint was filed because the National Park Service’s General Management Plan Amendment clearly violates multiple federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Water Act. It also makes a mockery of the park service’s Organic Act and the Point

Reyes Act that entrust it with preserving the area unimpaired for public enjoyment.

The plan was roundly opposed in public comments and by scientists, park advocates, environmental groups, social equity groups, animal rights activists and the Coast Miwok, whose historic stewardship is sidelined by the commercial ranching that dominates cultural interpretation. Officials are ignoring the public and the experts, relying instead on an inadequate environmental impact statement presenting almost no baseline data for making critical decisions about allocating water and other resources, determining viable elk herd size or limiting the spread of infectious cattle diseases to wildlife.

Dennis suggests that agencies “will work to resolve many of the impacts caused by ranching over time.” But the plan shows almost nothing of how the park service intends to comply with federal laws, remedy environmental damage and prevent further degradation as we face the climate crisis. Instead, it authorizes renewable 20-year leases and expands ranchers’ privileges to include row crops and livestock diversification, mobile slaughter facilities, tourist venues and — for the first time — the killing of Drakes Beach tule elk.

Clearly, these are serious, farreaching matters of law, public policy and environmental protection. I think the District Court will hold the National Park Service to account.

— Deborah Moskowitz,

San Anselmo