An Administrative History
|
Read the original document as it appears on the Park Service website by clicking here.
For those unwilling to read the entire document I have provided a dumbed down version below |
My dumbed down version of ‘An Administrative History of Point Reyes National Seashore’. Everything in italics is taken directly from that document (which can be viewed here).
I would like to warm the readers up with a handful of quotes from ‘An Administrative History of the Seashore’ that crush some of the propaganda promoted by the ranching community, and sadly, now also spread by the park service as well.
|
The study narrative gave little attention to the ranches, noting only that the private holdings of the larger ranches “prevented the public from gaining any conception of the physical beauty of the region.”
The report made no recommendations for preserving the agricultural tradition or the active dairy operations on the peninsula. The ranches and dairies were not elements that the NPS, most seashore supporters, and legislators initially sought to protect within the scope of the national seashore premise. They did not offer protection of dairy and cattle ranches as an objective in establishing the national seashore. Dairy ranchers raised an outcry and pledged to fight the seashore’s establishment. In July 1958, thirty-five ranchers formed the West Marin Property Owners Association The Marin County Board of Supervisors took the quick, unplanned vote against the seashore after hearing from a delegation of Point Reyes ranchers. They made their decision without holding an open hearing and before they heard from any Legislative History of the Point Reyes National Seashore Act One need only “replace the cows with elk and the scene would be that which met the eyes of the adventurers of the sixteenth century.” Dunshee, and likely Wirth as well, anticipated that the ranches would eventually go away once that process was completed. |
A basic revelation that may not occur to the public regarding the difficulty of establishing this seashore is that unlike other parks it was not taken from the public domain.
The majority of national parks, including iconic ones most of us are familiar with, were created prior to 1916. Back then most land that was proposed to become a park was already federal land, which meant there was no purchase price associated with creating parks on such land. And so we are introduced with an exceptionally big hurdle in the creation of Point Reyes National Seashore that would haunt the seashore for decades to come.
The first survey of Point Reyes National Seashore was in 1937 and the park was officially created until 1962. If we look back prior to 1916 the increase in private land holding and the price of land had both increased alarmingly. Ironically this is one of the motivations of the creation of the seashore; the disappearance of places worthy of public enjoyment.
But now the government had to buy the land rather than just designate a purpose for the land.
Land holders also needed to be willing to sell, which the peninsula ranchers were not. Here’s a funny quote from the history: “NPS officials might encounter “difficulties” trying to convince ranch owners to sell their property, but concluded that they would overcome any objections when the various parties paused “to think of the great need of this breathing spot generations hence.” Boy, did that turn out to be wrong! Despite the notion of the greater good, the preservation for future generations, despite the looming doom of the industry they stubbornly held to, despite the money on the table, these ranchers rejected all of the above based on “My daddy did this and his daddy did this, so we are never leaving.”
Not only is this rejection an uninspiring tale of selfishness, but is confusing when considering that the dairy industry was already in a downward spiral. Many dairies outside the peninsula had already started selling well before the proposal of the park and although the dairies of the peninsula fared a little better than the others, the writing was on the wall.
One may be under the impression via today’s news that dairy being a difficult industry to make a profit in is something new, but it’s not, and without government welfare it isn’t viable at all.
“The rich dairy industry of Marin County was already fading. Dairy farmers in East Marin were selling off their farms quickly to developers. Although this divestment process was retarded in the more isolated areas and richer grasslands of West Marin, even there, ranchers questioned how long dairying would remain a viable industry in the county”
According to the quoted historical record Point Reyes was going to be developed one way or another if the creation of the park didn’t interfere with that destiny.
It is clear Point Reyes will not long remain undeveloped unless it is acquired for public use. - Clair Engle. He added, as a case in point, that surveying and planning for commercial development were already underway there. . . .
More evidence on that topic
” It was not a case, they argued, of choosing between creating a federally managed development on the one hand, and keeping the area in its present “undeveloped and pastoral state,” on the other. Point Reyes was “going to be ‘developed’—one way or another.”
It was not a case of the ranches standing in the way of development and indeed, as mentioned already, many had already started selling outside the seashore even as developers laid claim on land within the peninsula. Evidence of this exists via the Drake’s Estates signs at their development locations which were barely stopped in time thanks to the acquisition of the land into the seashore. Logging was also taking place along Inverness Ridge, which was also brought to a halt thanks to the creation of the park. If anything, one might argue that more trees would remain standing if the opposition mounted from the ranch community had not sent the architects of the park back to the drawing board multiple times.
Because they did not yet have the support of the Marin County Board of Supervisors or the ranching community, Miller and Engle temporarily postponed congressional action on their bills.
Today the dairies within the seashore let the world know how much they are struggling, so much so that they can’t share grass with elk lest they face financial ruin. Considering the even sharper downturn of the industry in the decades since the creation of the park, it is more than reasonable to say that these dairies and ranches would have died long ago if they hadn’t been incorporated in the purchase deal of the park and allowed to lease back the land at a fraction of fair market value while drawing income from businesses outside the seashore. Dairy and beef are such unsustainable industries that even with government assistance the writing is on the wall that these dairies are doomed. Instead of going away as the administrative history clearly states was the plan, today’s park service is allowing the ranches to transform into other agricultural industries, which is a direct contradiction to stated conditions of the ranches being able to stay even temporarily.
The government could not acquire the land within the pastoral zone without an owner’s consent, unless he or she failed to keep the land in its natural state or shifted the commercial use to something other than ranching or dairying.
Not only could they not change from ranching and dairying, they couldn’t pursue the former if it detracted from the landscape, which today's ranches clearly do.
Thus, if ranchers made changes in their land use that promoted their dairy or ranch business but detracted from the area’s scenic effect, the NPS could challenge those changes and thus open the door to government condemnation of the property.
Considering the projections of urban development that had raised so much alarm in the 50’s it is a natural conclusion that these ranches would have eventually sold to developers who were able to pay better than our government was able or willing to. It is a fantasy to believe they wouldn’t have sold to the highest bidder when faced with the inevitable collapse of their damaging choice of livelihood. Perhaps the real problem in this story was the lack of government funds with which to woo the ranchers initially.
This ultimately led to compromises, including the infamous leases that are continually extended and redefined as ranchers take greater control of political influence.
Miller, the primary architect of the Point Reyes bill, reported that Wirth’s pastoral zone compromise was designed with three objectives in mind. The objectives were to respond to (and hopefully mollify) the objections of Point Reyes ranchers, to lessen the county tax burden created by sudden federal land acquisition, and to reduce the cost—at least the initial cost—of government land acquisition. He did not mention the preservation of a working agricultural landscape or the protection of the scenic values of the pastoral landscape, as goals of this compromise.
Regardless, these leases were finite, not infinite. Glorification of ranch lands came years later in combination with empowerment of ranchers and their politicians. You may recognize some of the terms below as now used by Huffman and others to elevate these ranches to a level worthy of conservation.
The terms vernacular landscape or working landscape were not yet part of the NPS lexicon in the early 1960s. The focus on ranchlands as cultural landscapes worthy of attention and protection did not emerge until years later. NPS policies formally identifying cultural landscapes did not appear until 1988. During debates regarding the authorization of Point Reyes National Seashore, many members of Congress described the ranches either as obstacles to overcome in gaining congressional authorization, or opportunities for obtaining the most territory without incurring an insurmountable price tag.
Of course the arrival and prolonged stay of Sansing played a huge part in this shift, but that is another chapter in the story...
The majority of national parks, including iconic ones most of us are familiar with, were created prior to 1916. Back then most land that was proposed to become a park was already federal land, which meant there was no purchase price associated with creating parks on such land. And so we are introduced with an exceptionally big hurdle in the creation of Point Reyes National Seashore that would haunt the seashore for decades to come.
The first survey of Point Reyes National Seashore was in 1937 and the park was officially created until 1962. If we look back prior to 1916 the increase in private land holding and the price of land had both increased alarmingly. Ironically this is one of the motivations of the creation of the seashore; the disappearance of places worthy of public enjoyment.
But now the government had to buy the land rather than just designate a purpose for the land.
Land holders also needed to be willing to sell, which the peninsula ranchers were not. Here’s a funny quote from the history: “NPS officials might encounter “difficulties” trying to convince ranch owners to sell their property, but concluded that they would overcome any objections when the various parties paused “to think of the great need of this breathing spot generations hence.” Boy, did that turn out to be wrong! Despite the notion of the greater good, the preservation for future generations, despite the looming doom of the industry they stubbornly held to, despite the money on the table, these ranchers rejected all of the above based on “My daddy did this and his daddy did this, so we are never leaving.”
Not only is this rejection an uninspiring tale of selfishness, but is confusing when considering that the dairy industry was already in a downward spiral. Many dairies outside the peninsula had already started selling well before the proposal of the park and although the dairies of the peninsula fared a little better than the others, the writing was on the wall.
One may be under the impression via today’s news that dairy being a difficult industry to make a profit in is something new, but it’s not, and without government welfare it isn’t viable at all.
“The rich dairy industry of Marin County was already fading. Dairy farmers in East Marin were selling off their farms quickly to developers. Although this divestment process was retarded in the more isolated areas and richer grasslands of West Marin, even there, ranchers questioned how long dairying would remain a viable industry in the county”
According to the quoted historical record Point Reyes was going to be developed one way or another if the creation of the park didn’t interfere with that destiny.
It is clear Point Reyes will not long remain undeveloped unless it is acquired for public use. - Clair Engle. He added, as a case in point, that surveying and planning for commercial development were already underway there. . . .
More evidence on that topic
” It was not a case, they argued, of choosing between creating a federally managed development on the one hand, and keeping the area in its present “undeveloped and pastoral state,” on the other. Point Reyes was “going to be ‘developed’—one way or another.”
It was not a case of the ranches standing in the way of development and indeed, as mentioned already, many had already started selling outside the seashore even as developers laid claim on land within the peninsula. Evidence of this exists via the Drake’s Estates signs at their development locations which were barely stopped in time thanks to the acquisition of the land into the seashore. Logging was also taking place along Inverness Ridge, which was also brought to a halt thanks to the creation of the park. If anything, one might argue that more trees would remain standing if the opposition mounted from the ranch community had not sent the architects of the park back to the drawing board multiple times.
Because they did not yet have the support of the Marin County Board of Supervisors or the ranching community, Miller and Engle temporarily postponed congressional action on their bills.
Today the dairies within the seashore let the world know how much they are struggling, so much so that they can’t share grass with elk lest they face financial ruin. Considering the even sharper downturn of the industry in the decades since the creation of the park, it is more than reasonable to say that these dairies and ranches would have died long ago if they hadn’t been incorporated in the purchase deal of the park and allowed to lease back the land at a fraction of fair market value while drawing income from businesses outside the seashore. Dairy and beef are such unsustainable industries that even with government assistance the writing is on the wall that these dairies are doomed. Instead of going away as the administrative history clearly states was the plan, today’s park service is allowing the ranches to transform into other agricultural industries, which is a direct contradiction to stated conditions of the ranches being able to stay even temporarily.
The government could not acquire the land within the pastoral zone without an owner’s consent, unless he or she failed to keep the land in its natural state or shifted the commercial use to something other than ranching or dairying.
Not only could they not change from ranching and dairying, they couldn’t pursue the former if it detracted from the landscape, which today's ranches clearly do.
Thus, if ranchers made changes in their land use that promoted their dairy or ranch business but detracted from the area’s scenic effect, the NPS could challenge those changes and thus open the door to government condemnation of the property.
Considering the projections of urban development that had raised so much alarm in the 50’s it is a natural conclusion that these ranches would have eventually sold to developers who were able to pay better than our government was able or willing to. It is a fantasy to believe they wouldn’t have sold to the highest bidder when faced with the inevitable collapse of their damaging choice of livelihood. Perhaps the real problem in this story was the lack of government funds with which to woo the ranchers initially.
This ultimately led to compromises, including the infamous leases that are continually extended and redefined as ranchers take greater control of political influence.
Miller, the primary architect of the Point Reyes bill, reported that Wirth’s pastoral zone compromise was designed with three objectives in mind. The objectives were to respond to (and hopefully mollify) the objections of Point Reyes ranchers, to lessen the county tax burden created by sudden federal land acquisition, and to reduce the cost—at least the initial cost—of government land acquisition. He did not mention the preservation of a working agricultural landscape or the protection of the scenic values of the pastoral landscape, as goals of this compromise.
Regardless, these leases were finite, not infinite. Glorification of ranch lands came years later in combination with empowerment of ranchers and their politicians. You may recognize some of the terms below as now used by Huffman and others to elevate these ranches to a level worthy of conservation.
The terms vernacular landscape or working landscape were not yet part of the NPS lexicon in the early 1960s. The focus on ranchlands as cultural landscapes worthy of attention and protection did not emerge until years later. NPS policies formally identifying cultural landscapes did not appear until 1988. During debates regarding the authorization of Point Reyes National Seashore, many members of Congress described the ranches either as obstacles to overcome in gaining congressional authorization, or opportunities for obtaining the most territory without incurring an insurmountable price tag.
Of course the arrival and prolonged stay of Sansing played a huge part in this shift, but that is another chapter in the story...
#pointreyes #pointreyesnationalseashore #PRNS #nationalpark #shameofpointreyes #administrativehistory #pointreyeshistory
