Tag: cattle

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.

Tule Elk

Bull Tule Elk; Point Reyes National Seashore

This is a photo of a bull tule elk feeding at sunset.

A bull tule elk feeds at sunset.

This photo was taken during the last few minutes of daylight in 2019.  It was a sunny day with no fog.  This bull is one of the over 400 elk that are kept locked up inside a 2,600 acre enclosure.  There are no perennial streams in the enclosure.  The elk are dependent on old farm ponds that were dug decades ago before the Park Service bought the ranches.  Unfortunately, these ponds dry up in drought years.  About 250 elk died during the drought several years ago.  Perennial streams exist not far outside the enclosure.

You may be wondering why they are kept penned up.  It’s so the elk won’t bother the ranchers who live with their 6,000 cattle and sheep on about 25,000 acres of park land and do so at about half the rental rates for ranch lands outside the park.

When the Seashore was asked why the Park Service didn’t do anything to save the elk during the drought, the Park Service said that it was Park Service policy to let nature take its course.  But in nature there are no eight-foot tall woven-wire elk-proof fences.