Editorial: Questions about secret Point Reyes ranch deal linger

It is no surprise that the 12 ranching families who took buyouts to leave their long-held ranches in the Point Reyes National Seashore don’t want to scuttle those sales.

The families that accepted the offer from the Nature Conservancy envisioned their historic ranches under the duress of the economic difficulties facing dairy and cattle ranching; the promise of continual political pressure by environmental activists to leave the park; and having a less-than-supportive relationship with their landlord, the National Park Service.

Nature Conservancy buying their leases came as part of the settlement of a lawsuit filed by three environmental groups against the park service, challenging plans to provide the park’s 14 ranches with longer-term leases.

The park service’s plans are a controversial part of the park’s new master plan which, after years of public dialogue and debate, called for extending the leases, while also increasing oversight to bring the ranches up to modern environmental practices and standards. The park service’s decision to take down fences that contained the park’s elk herd was also seen by ranchers as a threat to the viability of their operations.

The Nature Conservancy, bolstered by generous contributions from Bay Area supporters, was brought into the settlement talks and a $30 million agreement was struck offering to buy the ranches’ leases. All but two of the ranches accepted buyouts and will leave.

The federal approval of that strategy is being challenged by two lawsuits, both advancing the argument that the park service rewrote its master plan behind closed doors. Parties involved in those private talks were required to keep the details secret. Even months after the buyouts were announced, details remain sketchy.

Officially, the county stayed out of the talks, even though it is left with the costly challenges of providing housing for ranch workers who are not only losing their jobs, but also their homes. There are also possible ramifications caused by this erosion of Marin’s ranching and dairy industry. The loss of these ranches undermines West Marin’s agricultural economy and the varied businesses and families that rely on it. In 2012, the Interior Department promised to give ranchers longer-term leases that would enable them to make needed investments in their holdings. Twelve years later, that promise remained unfulfilled and that support was lacking.

The park service’s role in ranchers’ decision to take the buyout is a question that remains unanswered.

Lawyers involved in the challenges to the pact have said the park service was trying to get the settlement done before President Donald Trump and his administration took office.

Now, Republicans holding the majority in Congress have launched an inquiry into the deal.

The Nature Conservancy’s purchase of those leases appear to be agreements reached in good faith by the ranchers.

Those contracts have been signed. Unraveling the settlement, at this point, could be legally messy, if not unfair.

In some cases, the families have already sold their livestock and packed up and left those ranches.

Republicans may have a strong case in questioning the lack of transparency in the deliberations and the governmental decisions that were reached. The settlement that led to the buyout took several months of private talks, undoing the new master plan’s support for the leases – an issue that took years of public review.

The environment groups’ lawsuit essentially took public policy and rewrote it behind closed doors.

The lawsuits challenging the park service’s settlement agreement and the congressional inquiry could provide some much-needed sunshine on the details of the deliberations.

For the remaining ranchers, those who didn’t take the buyout offer, a question remains whether the park’s adopted master plan should be upheld and ranching be allowed on the leases that were purchased by the Nature Conservancy.

At this time, jeopardizing the buyouts that have already been agreed to is not the right solution. Those families have made their decisions, choices that likely were heart wrenching given their historical ties to those lands and their generational livelihoods.