Category: Point Reyes National Seashore

Point Reyes National Seashore

Cypress Tree Tunnel, Point Reyes National Seashore

This is a photo of a place in Point Reyes National Seashore called the Cypress Tree Tunnel because the road leading to an historic RCA site is shaded by a row of cypress trees on each side of the road and they grow over the road forming a tunnel-like appearance..

This is a view of the driveway leading to an historic building that was used by RCA long ago to communicate with ships in the Pacific. It’s somewhat famous for the cypress trees along the driveway because they form a tunnel leading to the old building. When I drive by this spot there are usually one or more people standing there taking photos.  As a person who is primarily a wildlife photographer, I’ve driven by there hundreds of times in the past 15 years and never stopped to photograph the tunnel. Recently, I decided I ought to do that some time.  A month ago I was driving by and no one was there. So, I stopped and took a few quick held-held “snapshots” with a not-ideal 100-500 mm lens (at 100 mm) just to be able to look at some photos at home to see if I should bother to go back for some more serious photos with a wider angle lens on a tripod, at sunset.  Maybe HDR.  I’m surprised that the photos, like the one above, were fairly good.  That makes me want to go back and try for better results.    

Deer, Elk, Fencing, Point Reyes National Seashore

Point Reyes National Seashore Sets World Record for Livestock Fence Height

This is a photo of a barbed wire fence that is 55 inches in height which is much higher than a deer or elk can jump.

Barbed Wire Fence Is 56 Inches High, Not the Preferred 40 Inches

On January 15 I wrote about a new fence along the reconstructed Sir Francis Drake Boulevard that runs from Estero Road to near Schooner Creek Road.  It violates almost every rule for wildlife-friendly fencing even though NPS said in its FEIS that any new fences would be wildlife-friendly.   The top wire is 48 inches high with 12 inches between each of the wires below it, leaving the bottom wire 12 inches above ground for deer fawns and elk calves to have to try to crawl under.  They can’t do that, especially with barbed wire tearing their flesh.

On January 24 I drove out the reconstructed Sir Francis Drake Boulevard to Chimney Rock and the lighthouse and found further new fencing along it even worse than the fencing I wrote about on January 15 because it is absurdly high.

I listed the specs for a wildlife-friendly fence in my January 15 blog.  Here they are again:

  1. The top wire should be low enough for adult animals to jump over, preferably no more than 40 inches, and “absolutely no more than 42 inches.”
  2. The distance between the top two wires should be “[a]t least 12 inches,” so elk and deer won’t tangle their back legs with the top wires; (For a photo showing what happens if the top two wires are not far enough apart, click here.)
  3. The bottom wire should be “at least 18 inches,” above the ground.
  4. The top and bottom strands should be “smooth wire” (like regular two strand twisted barbed wire, but without the added barbs) so animals don’t get snagged and injured.
  5. No vertical stays.

Also, the top wire should be made highly visible so mammals and birds see it when running and/or flying by using high visibility wire or sections of white pvc pipe, flagging or a top rail.

The top wire of the newest found fence here is 56 inches high with 12 inches between each of the wires below it, leaving the bottom wire 20 inches above ground.  Put another way, the wires are 56, 44, 32 and 20 inches above ground.  The top and bottom wires are not smooth; there is no flagging or anything else used to make the top wire visible to mammals and birds running and/or flying and there are not supposed to be any vertical stays.

So, what will it take for NPS to make this fence wildlife-friendly?  The top wire needs to be removed because it is barbed and way too high.  The wire below it, which is now 44 inches above ground, needs to be removed because it will be the top wire, but it is barbed so it can’t be used as the top wire, and because it is also too high so it needs to be lowered by 2 inches or, preferably, four inches. to 42 or 40 inches.  That wire, as the new top wire, also needs to be made more visible.  When that new top wire is installed, the wire below it, now at 32 inches above ground, will need to be lowered because, as the new second wire, it must be at least 12 inches below the new top wire.   The bottom wire needs to be replaced because it is barbed, not smooth, and the vertical stays need to be removed.

As I think about the fences in the three articles I’ve written recently, what I’m most struck by is how NPS says new fencing will be wildlife-friendly and it doesn’t keep its word.  Far from it.  How can the public expect that appropriate construction specs and all the mitigation measures will be followed for new projects described in the FEIS?  And, by the way, what about all the damage done in the past from ranching that still remains?  No commitments were made in the FEIS to remediate past (and continuing) damage to water quality; native plants; soils (damaged and/or lost due to compaction, and erosion and resultant gullies); native fish and wildlife species, such as salmon, steelhead, pronghorns, ground squirrels; etc.

What is Superintendent Craig Kenkel’s response to all this?  Ask him:  Craig_Kenkel@nps.gov.

Deer, Elk, Fencing, Point Reyes National Seashore, Ranching, Uncategorized

New Fencing at Point Reyes National Seashore and It’s Not Wildlife-Friendly

Barbed-Wire Fence

New 48″ High Fence

New Fencing Along the Newly Reconstructed Section of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Is Not Wildlife-Friendly.

The reconstructed section of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard has been opened to the public.  I drove it a week ago.  Along the south side of the road is a new barbed wire fence.  It looked really tall to me so I stopped and measured it.  It is 48 inches high.  That’s way too tall for deer or elk to safely clear!  The space below the bottom wire measured 12 inches.  That’s way too low for fawns or elk calves to crawl under!  There is 12 inches of space between the rest of the wires.

The Final EIS states that all new fencing, as well as replacement fencing, will be wildlife-friendly.  The FEIS adopts the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)  spec for wildlife-friendly fencing.  The NRCS spec adopts “A Landowner’s Guide to Wildlife Friendly Fences: How to Build Fences with Wildlife in Mind.”  First edition (2008).

To view the NRCS spec/Landowner’s Guide, click here.  It describes a wildlife-friendly fence as one that allows animals to jump over or crawl under it without injury.  Page 8.   More specifically:

  1. The top wire should be low enough for adult animals to jump over, preferably 40 inches, and “absolutely no more than 42 inches.”  Id.
  2. The distance between the top two wires should be “[a]t least 12 inches,” so elk and deer won’t tangle their back legs with the top wires; Id.  (For a photo showing what happens if the top two wires are not far enough apart, click here.)
  3. The bottom wire should be “at least 18 inches,” above the ground.  Id.
  4. The top and bottom strands should be “smooth wire” (like regular two strand twisted barbed wire, but without the added barbs) so animals don’t get snagged and injured.   Id.
  5. No vertical stays.  Id.

Finally, the top wire should be made highly visible so mammals and birds see it when running or flying by using high visibility wire or sections of white pvc pipe, flagging or a top rail.  Id.

To the best of my knowledge, the fence along Sir Francis Drake Blvd. is the first new fence since the FEIS for a new General Management Plan was released.  Does it pass the fencing standards NPS promised it would follow in the FEIS for new fences?   No.  Far from it.  I know the ROD hasn’t been signed yet, but come on.   It will be signed soon.

It is not highly visible at all.  No attempt has been made to meet that standard.  It is 48 inches high, not the 42 inch (or the preferable 40 inch standard) considered the maximum height to allow adult deer and elk to jump over it.  It does pass the 12 inch spacing between the top two wires.  The bottom wire is only 12 inches from the ground, thereby failing miserably to meet the 18 inch clearance standard!  Fawns and elk calves will not be able to crawl under it.  The top and bottom strands should be smooth wire, but they aren’t.  Finally, there should be no vertical stays, but there is one midway between every two posts.  Another problem is that it doesn’t account for the fact that the fence is built on sloping land for much of its length.  The photo above is an example.  A deer standing on the road side of the fence is standing on land that is roughly one or two feet lower than the land the fence is on.  That means the deer must jump much, much higher than the 48 inches.  That is virtually impossible to do.  If a deer could jump that high, it lands in thick brush.

This new fence violates every wildlife-friendly fencing requirement except the space between the top two wires.  Furthermore, there are never any cattle along this stretch of road because the land behind the fence in covered in dense brush for as far as one can see.  There is no reason for this fence.  If there is some plausible reason why it should remain, then this fence should be modified to be wildlife-friendly and that should be done now.

After I drafted this article I called NPS to ask about the fence.  I was told others had already contacted NPS about it.  I asked why it was 48 inches high with only 12 inches clearance at the bottom in disregard of wildlife-friendly fencing standards promised in the FEIS.  I received a call-back the next day and was told the fence height was a mistake and it would be lowered to 42 inches in height.   As to the 12 inches at the bottom, I was told it was actually 14 inches and would remain at that height (and barbed, not smooth wire) because the fence along this section of road required a diversion from a wildlife-friendly fence design to keep cattle off the road.  So much for the statement in the FEIS that “all new Fencing [sic] would be required to be wildlife-friendly.”  Wildlife-friendly fencing was designed to be adequate for holding cattle whether it was along a road or not.

The fence section I measured a week ago had 12 inches of clearance at the bottom so when I was told it was 14 inches above ground I decided to drive out to the park and measure several random sections of the fence.  First, a word about the measuring device I created.  I took two yardsticks and, with the aid of rubber bands, I extended them so they became 48 inches in length.  I also had a 12-inch ruler which I added to where the yellow yard stick had been slid up 12 inches.  It provided an easy to see contrast at the 12 inch mark.  The bottom wire in the photo is about 11.5 inches above the ground.

The measurements I got varied, but the most common measurement I got was 12 inches, give or take half an inch.  You can tell it’s 12 inches at the bottom just by eye-balling it because each wire is equally spaced compared to the wire above and/or below it.  Starting at the top wire, which is about 48 inches above ground, every wire below it is equidistant from the wire above and/or below it.  Hence, if the top wire is 48 inches above the ground, the bottom wire is going to be 12 inches above ground.

But even if I had gotten mostly the 14 inch measurements NPS claimed, that would still be four inches less than the standard for a wildlife-friendly fence (and barbed)!   I don’t see any reason for this fence to be there at all given the heavy brush that extends as far back as you can see.   Cattle don’t go into areas of heavy brush.  But even if there is a need for a fence there, it should be wildlife-friendly like NPS has committed to in the FEIS.

NPS’s Promise to Convert All New and Replacement Fencing To Wildlife-Friendly Fencing Throughout the Two Parks.

In looking at the FEIS to see what it says about wildlife-friendly fencing, I just realized something that I don’t think I realized about NPS’s statement to convert to wildlife-friendly fencing when I read the DEIS.  The FEIS states as follows:  “Fencing—Approximately 20% of the 340 miles of existing fencing would be replaced, 24 miles of fence would be installed for the Resource Protection subzone, and an additional 35 miles of new fence would be constructed to improve livestock management over the 20-year lease/permit term. NPS anticipates up to 5 Fencing projects annually.”  FEIS at 110.  (Emphasis added.)

So, only 20% of 340 miles of fencing will be replaced during the 20-year lease/permit terms per the preferred alternative in the FEIS.  Twenty percent in 20 years is one percent per year or 3.4 miles per year.  To do 340 miles would take 100 years.  What a joke!  Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area are units of the national park system.  There should be no fencing at all.  If any fencing is to remain, it must be converted to wildlife-friendly fencing now – regardless of which ranching alternative is chosen.   What is NPS’s reason for this lack of any real action?

NPS gives it in the FEIS’s Appendix:  “While all new Fencing would be required to be wildlife friendly, the EIS does not require that existing fencing be changed until it needs to be replaced because replacing all fencing would be cost prohibitive. NPS would work with ranchers as needed to make adjustments to fences that pose a threat to wildlife. In areas where elk occur, fences would be repaired and/or replaced with wildlife-friendly fence designs that reduce the extent of damage by elk, and as existing fencing is replaced, it would be replaced with wildlife-friendly Fencing.”  FEIS, Appendix at P-42.  (Emphasis added.)

Cost?  That is not good enough.  As stated above, fencing doesn’t belong in the national park system and neither do beef and dairy cattle.  If cattle are going to be kept in a unit of the national park system, then the fencing must be made wildlife-friendly now, not 20, 40, 60, 80 or 100 years from now.  Each ranch should be able to complete that work in a year.  Another option would be for NPS to take on this responsibility.  The 1906 NPS Organic Act and the two park statutes require fencing that is friendly to wildlife now, not up to 100 years from now.

If you agree that NPS should fix the new one or two mile stretch of fencing along Sir Francis Drake Blvd. with a proper wildlife-friendly fence immediately and complete the conversion of all the rest of the fencing in the two parks to wildlife-friendly fencing in the next twelve months, send an email to Craig Kenkel, the new Superintendent at Point Reyes National Seashore, at Craig_Kenkel@nps.gov, or send a letter to him at 1 Bear Valley Road, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956.

Point Reyes National Seashore

Point Reyes National Seashore; Former Cattle Area Where Elk Now Prevent Brush Intrusion

Panoramic photo showing amount of grassy area in elk reserve at Point Reyes National Seashore.
Photo showing amount of grassy area in elk reserve at Point Reyes National Seashore.

Point Reyes National Seashore is in the middle of a controversial planning process to determine whether 28,000 acres of commercial ranching operations conducted on federally-owned national park lands should continue or not.  The National Park Service (NPS) bought the land about 50 years ago and it has never had the nerve to make the ranchers to leave.

If ranching is stopped, the ranchers and their cattle, plus many miles of fencing which restrict human and wildlife movement, would be removed and the public would finally be able to recreate on these lands and the lands would be managed for the benefit of wildlife, such as elk, and other natural resources. Right now, the only difference between what NPS wants and what the ranchers want in the planning process regarding elk is whether to shoot 10% of the 120 elk each year (NPS) or all of them at once (ranchers). Why? Elk eat grass and grass is dedicated 100% to cows in this national park. That’s right. No grass or other forage is allocated by NPS for elk or other wildlife.

One argument the ranchers make for why they should be allowed to stay on (at subsidized rents no less) is that if you remove them and their nearly 6,000 dairy and beef cows, the lands will go from beautiful green grasslands (in winter yes, but dead brown grass in summer) to a thick cover of brush that one couldn’t even walk through. Are they right? No.

Here is a panoramic photo of a large portion of the fenced Tomales Point Elk Reserve where 10 elk were reintroduced and hundreds of cows were removed 40 years ago. (Press Command/+ (PC Control/+) one or more times to increase size of photo.)  If the ranchers were correct, this area would be devoid of grass and completely covered in brush. But it’s not.  What you see is mostly grass with brush more prevalent on sloping land like you see in the two draws to the left of the parking lot.

Even though there were only 10 elk to begin with, compared to the hundreds of cattle that had been there before them, the elk herd as it has grown has kept the area basically as it was 40 years ago in terms of a mix of grass and shrubs, like coyote brush and bush lupine. Elk eat grass too (as the ranchers often complain) and they eat more brush than cows because they are not only grazers, like cows, but browsers, like deer, as well.

Still need convincing? Here’s what the range scientists at UC, Berkeley, (by nature, a group favoring cattle grazing), said, begrudgingly, in their 2018 Point Reyes Range Study for Seashore managers to inform them as to whether Point Reyes should be managed for commercial ranching or the preservation and restoration of wildlife, especially elk, and other natural resources:  “Grazing has been shown to negatively impact shrub establishment. Cattle browse minimally on mature coyote brush plants with browse increasing in heavily grazed areas, but they regularly defoliate and uproot coyote brush seedlings, preventing the spread of these shrubs into neighboring grasslands (Elliot & Wehausen 1974; McBride 1974). Johnson and Cushman (2007) found tule elk reduced total shrub cover in a paired grazed and ungrazed enclosure study at PORE.”  “Grazing Plan: Recommendations for [PRNS] managed grazing lands.” Range Ecology Lab, UC, Berkeley, August 15, 2018, at 13.  (Emphasis added.)

A national park should be managed to preserve and protect nature and, if man has damaged it, then NPS should make every effort to restore it to its natural condition. That is in accord with the 1916 NPS Organic Act and NPS management policy.

Before European man and his cows arrived these lands were part of a native coastal prairie stretching from Oregon to southern California. That has all changed with the arrival of cattle.

AS NPS says:  “Less than one percent of California’s native grassland is still intact today. The northern coastal prairie, which extends into Oregon, is the most diverse type of grassland in North America. Pristine patches of this vegetation still grow at Point Reyes on either side of the San Andreas Fault. Deschampsia coastal prairie is found on the Point Reyes peninsula and Danthonia coastal prairie is found on Bolinas Ridge. Coastal prairie is dominated by long lived perennial bunchgrasses, such as Purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), California fescue (Festuca californica) and California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), all of which can stay green year round with the moisture provided in the fog belt [and thanks to their very deep root systems].

By 1850, dairy ranchers had arrived at Point Reyes, lured by the near-ideal conditions for raising cattle. Since then, ranchers planted many non-native grasses, many of which were invasive and began to out-compete the native grasses.”   https://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/nature/prairies.htm

Finally, the non-native, annual grass at Point Reyes, which looks like a golf course in winter and a desert in summer, has little wildlife value. While it is eaten by a few mammals, such as elk, it is not a food of many wildlife species and provides no cover or nesting value for wildlife like coyote brush and other shrubs do.

Elk, Point Reyes National Seashore, Tule Elk

Point Reyes National Seashore; Should Private Ranching Be Allowed on National Park Lands?

A Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) Bull Tule elk with Barbed Wire Caught in His Antlers

Skeleton of a PRNS Bull Elk Who Died Because Barbed Wire Caught in Antlers Prevented Him from Opening His Mouth.

I was on a Marin TV show entitled “The People’s Environmental News.”  It’s hosted by Barbara McVeigh and and Charlie Siler.  The show was about Point Reyes National Seashore and the planning and NEPA process currently underway for whether 28,000 acres of national park land should be managed for national park purposes or for private ranching purposes.  Environmentalists want the land to be managed in accordance with the laws requiring the park to protect, preserve and restore the natural resources, including wildlife such as the tule elk.   The ranchers want the park to be managed to maximize profit regardless of its effect on wildlife.  That requires removing the elk because they eat grass and the ranchers want their cows to get every blade of grass.  Thus, the ranchers want the elk removed/shot.  They can’t be moved outside the park because they have Johne’s disease which they got from the cattle.  For the past 40 years or so the National Park Service has gone along with whatever the ranchers wanted.  No, I’m not kidding.  The show can be seen here.

I was also on a show last April with Laura Cunningham of the Western Watersheds Project and Skyler Thomas of White Shark Videos.  That show was also about ranching and protecting the elk at Point Reyes Seashore.  That show can be seen here.

 

Point Reyes National Seashore, Tule Elk

Cows in Creek; Point Reyes National Seashore

I was at Point Reyes National Seashore last Thursday. K Ranch beef cows were in Kehoe Creek again. There is a fence just a bit beyond the top border of the video that fails occasionally. This scene is the result. The fence should be relocated to the top of the large slope above the creek to keep manure out of the creek in wet periods, but that would remove many acres from the ranch’s grazing area. I emailed the Park Service about the cows and they replied that the rancher had been notified.

There is a planning process underway to determine if ranching should continue on these national park lands or whether the lands should be managed to protect and restore them to a natural condition as required in national parks. Perhaps the most controversial issue is whether the 125 elk that roam through the park’s ranching area should be shot because they eat grass and the ranchers feel that as permittees on park lands their cows are entitled to all the grass. The Park Service has never allocated any forage to elk or other wildlife in the permits.

If you look and listen carefully, you’ll see the top cow defecate and fart at the end of the video. Kehoe Creek, which begins and ends within the Seashore, is rated as one of the most polluted streams in California.

African Lion, Bald Eagle, Cows, Coyote, Eagle, elephant, Elk, Favorite Images, Guanaco, Landscape, Lion, Point Reyes National Seashore, Red Fox, San Francisco, Serengeti National Park, Torres del Paine National Park, Tule Elk

Favorite Blog Photos of 2019

Here are some of my favorite photos that I blogged about in 2019.

This is a photo of a bull tule elk feeding at sunset.A bull tule elk feeds at sunset inside the elk enclosure at Point Reyes National Seashore.

At Point Reyes National Seashore 400-500 elk are kept locked up behind an 8-foot tall woven-wire fence to keep them away from the ranchers who live on and control 28,000 acres of park land and raise 6,000 dairy cows, beef cattle and sheep.  NPS bought their ranches decades ago, but never removed them.  The 28,000 acres are managed as the ranchers want, not as lands in a national park are supposed to be managed.  I know of no other national park where wildlife is locked up like in a zoo for the visitors to see.

This is a night photo of the San Francisco skyline with Angel Island in the foreground and Alcatraz in the midground.A night view of Angel Island, Alcatraz and San Francisco.

Photo of some mountain peaks and fog at dawn in Torres del Paine National ParkMountains and fog at dawn in Torres del Paine National Park

This is a photo of a mother guanaco and her young before sunrise in Torres del Paine National Park.A mother guanaco and her chulengo appear before sunrise in Torres del Paine National Park.

Red Fox Vixen with Snowshoe HareA red fox mom returns to her den with an arctic hare to feed her kits in Yellowstone National Park.

This is a photo of three lionesses who are on the hunt. One is wearing a research collar.Three lionesses are on the hunt in Serengeti National Park.

This is a photo of a mature bald eagle perched on a limb.A bald eagle perches on a limb in Alaska.

This is a photo of a male elephant walking away from a wetland in Tarangire National Park, Tanzania.A male elephant walks near a wetland in Tarangire National Park, Tanzania.

Photo of female lion surveying her domain in Serengeti National Park.An African lioness surveys her domain in Serengeti National Park.

A coyote stops and looks at the camera in Point Reyes Seashore just before the sun sets.A coyote stops just before sunset as it travels across a ranch pasture in Point Reyes National Seashore.

The National Park Service purchased the ranches several decades ago, but it has never made the ranchers leave.

A bald eagle lands too close to another and gets bitten in the neck.One bald eagle bites another at Homer, Alaska.

Photo of a coyote on a ranch pasture in Point Reyes National Seashore.A coyote walks across a ranch pasture full of non-native European grasses in Point Reyes Seashore.

The National Park Service prioritizes private ranching over wildlife in Point Reyes National Seashore.  This is the worst example of privatizing a national park that I am aware of.  It involves 28,000 acres of national park land.  If anyone knows of a worse example, please let me know.