When Activism Goes Too Far: The Forced Exit of Point Reyes Farmers
In January of this year, a deal was announced between environmentalist groups and ranchers in Point Reyes National Seashore, located in Marin County of the Bay Area. This deal resulted in the closure of 12 historic farms after a legacy of 150 years of multigenerational farming practices in the area.[1] It comes after decades of legal disputes over land use, environmental conservation, and wildlife management. There’s a lot to unpack here – like who are the farmers in Point Reyes? How will the closure of several farms impact the economy, agriculture, and the farmers themselves? What led to this agreement and what were the reasons for environmentalist groups seeking the closure of these ranches?
Who are the Point Reyes Ranchers?
Let’s start from the beginning – who are the Point Reyes Ranchers? This is a group of multigenerational farming families who have operated dairy and cattle ranches in the Point Reyes National Seashore for over 150 years. Their history is deeply intertwined with the region's agricultural and economic development, as well as its cultural heritage.
Ranching in Point Reyes began in the mid-19th century. Early Americans settled in this area of California in 1856, and just one year later, by 1857, large-scale dairy operations were already established to supply high-quality butter and cheese to the growing city of San Francisco.[2] They were drawn to Point Reyes for its cool, moist climate, which were ideal for dairy farming.[3] By the late 19th century, it became known as the "butter capital of California," with innovative production methods that influenced dairy farming nationwide.[4]
Today, the Point Reyes ranches contribute approximately 17–20% of Marin County's $110 million annual agricultural production.[5] When factoring in their contributions to related industries like feed suppliers and veterinary services, their economic impact is estimated at $60 million annually.[6] These ranches provide jobs both directly and indirectly. For every farm job, it’s estimated that up to four additional jobs are supported off-farm, contributing significantly to the local economy. Ranchers also pay grazing fees to the National Park Services and property taxes to Marin County, further supporting public resources.[7]
The ranches are known for sustainable and organic farming practices. Many have adopted regenerative agriculture techniques in alignment with California’s environmental goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve soil health.[8] They also have a significant community presence. They support local schools, businesses, and community services.[9]
To sum it all up, these are farmers who have been operating their dairy ranches in the area since the mid-1800s, they have contributed significantly to their communities, and they have provided a huge percentage of agriculture to the surrounding areas.
So…What Happened?
If these farmers have contributed so much, then why are they being forced to close?
It started in 1962, when Congress created the Point Reyes National Seashore. The original plan was to provide beach and recreation access to residents of neighboring cities, while still allowing the farmers to maintain their ranches through a 26,000-acre pastoral zone. This didn’t quite pan out though, because by the 1970s, the National Park Service (NPS) took ownership these lands, granting ranchers renewable leases or reservations of use.[10] Over time, conflicts began to emerge between ranching operations and conservation priorities. Environmental groups raised concerns about pollution, habitat degradation, and competition between cattle and native tule elk populations[11] – and that really is the key piece of the puzzle in understanding why today these farms are being shut down.
The main concern centers around the native tule elk. In 2016, various environmental groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, the Resource Renewal Institute, and the Western Watersheds Project, sued the National Park Service over ranching impacts on tule elk and ecosystems.[12] What are these elk doing in California and why are they important? Originally, the tule elk were native to California, before the 1800s. By the mid-1800s, they went extinct given the settlement of Americans in the area and the establishment of farms and ranches. In 1874, a small herd of fewer than ten tule elk was discovered in the Central Valley, which led our state to begin focusing on their repopulation. A century later, in 1970, the National Park Service worked with conservationists to bring the Tule Elk back to Point Reyes. Finally, in 1978, ten tule elk were moved from San Luis Wildlife Refuge to the Tomales Point area of Point Reyes National Seashore.[13] The reason that environmentalists give for protecting the elk center around the idea that they were a native species to the area, meaning we should work to conserve their presence in Point Reyes.
Just how do farms disrupt these elk who were only reintegrated to the area in the 1970s? Well, if you are raising cattle to maintain a dairy farm in the same area as other wildlife, then naturally this will create competition for resources. The cattle must have areas to graze in, and if the cattle are eating the grass, and the elk are eating the grass, this creates a scarcity of resources. Add on top of that the years that California saw drought, then there become limitations on water resources for both cattle and elk as well. The ranchers pushed for the National Park Service to control the population of the elk to reduce this competition between them and the cattle.
The first step the Park Service took was it fenced the elk in so that they would not disrupt farms or encounter the cattle. Another step was to limit the population of the elk to ensure there weren’t too many in the area. They capped the elk population at 120 per year and would cull, or kill, elk to maintain that number. It’s no surprise that environmentalists took issue with both solutions to the cattle versus elk battle. Opponents said that the fence solution “prevented elk from surviving by accessing food and water.”[14] Many elk were dying off due to being unable to naturally migrate toward the areas with more resources. They also called the population control by killing off elk inhumane, arguing that we should not be killing natural wildlife to better serve farms. So, the National Park Services has been locked in legal battles with these environmental groups for years, which has inevitably led to the announcement in January that the Point Reyes farms would be shutting down.
The Outcome
How was this decision reached, and how are all the parties involved reacting to the news?
That 2016 lawsuit mentioned earlier was the spark that led us to this point. The agreement to close the ranches is the resolution to that lawsuit, after 9 years of legal proceedings. The agreement stipulates that 12 out of 14 existing ranches will cease their operations within 15 months. This transition was agreed upon through buyouts, with compensation totaling approximately $30 million to the farmers.[15]
After the farms cease operations and leave for good, the fence surrounding the Tule Elk will be removed and the population caps will be lifted, allowing them to roam freely and repopulate the area. The former farmland will be classified as a Scenic Landscape Zone, which will prioritize native plant species regrowth and other endangered species like Coho Salmon.[16] This is what environmental activists have been fighting for, but how are the farmers feeling about it?
It would be easy to look at a settlement for an amount like $30 million and think that this is a fair situation. That’s a lot of money, so the farmers are clearly being fairly compensated for their farms, right? But the reality of the situation is not so simple. This is an amount that is split among all 12 ranches, so in reality the breakdown is closer to $2.5 million per ranch. If you know anything about housing and land costs in the expensive bay area, then you know that amount isn’t actually a lot. But then, there are also the real implications of farm laborers who have helped the ranchers. These are large dairy farms, meaning it isn’t just one person on each ranch keeping operations running. They have employees to think about, people who have helped them on their land day in and day out, and if they want to pay them any type of severance for their jobs coming to an end, it will reduce that final number that the owners of the farms walk away with. That’s barely enough to go into the city near Point Reyes and find a modest house for themselves, which means the likely outcome will be the farmers and the laborers who once lived in this area will have to move to another part of California to rebuild.[17]
Beyond just the monetary aspect, farmers are incredibly sad to leave the legacy that their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents have built and left for them over the decades. One Point Reyes rancher, Kevin Lunny said, “It feels like a death. Other ranchers are telling me they feel the same way. It’s the only home and address we’ve ever known. It’s who we are — it’s our identity.”[18] This makes sense, because it’s a huge loss to lose the home that not only have you known, but the home that your parents and grandparents knew, and the profession that has defined your life and your family legacy. This is bigger than just asking a few people to move – this is their mission, their livelihood, and their history.
Why Does This Matter?
While the closure of these farms isn’t the direct effect of a statewide mandate or law, it absolutely connects to larger statewide trends and policy priorities. California has some of the strictest environmental and climate regulations in the country, and the pressure to protect biodiversity, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and conserve public lands is high. Agencies like the California Coastal Commission, the California Air Resources Board, and groups pushing for rewilding and land preservation all help shape the climate in which decisions like the Point Reyes closures happen—even if they aren’t the ones directly issuing the orders.
Why does it matter and what should we learn from it?
First are the ramifications on the ranchers’ historic and cultural legacy. Many of the ranching families have lived and worked the land for 150+ years, going back to Mexican land grants and early European settlement. When the national seashore was created in the 1960s, the government promised these families they could stay—often under “lifetime leases” or renewable permits. Forcing them out is seen by some as a betrayal of that promise and a loss of California’s ranching heritage.
Then there are the impacts on the local economy and food production. The ranches provide jobs, dairy, and beef to local markets; and while you or I may not live in those areas, local economies still support the statewide economy overall. Point Reyes farms contribute to the local economy, including employment, agri-tourism, and artisan food production. They are seen to represent “sustainable, small-scale agriculture”, not industrial factory farms. Losing them means cutting off a local food source and displacing workers. This isn’t right when it’s done to preserve one species of animal that was already thought to have gone extinct decades ago. Why is the life of tule elk worth such a large hit to the economy and the displacement of hardworking farmers and their workers?
There is another, larger scale issue to consider as well, around land stewardship and fire management. Ranchers can help to maintain the landscape in areas like Point Reyes. Grazing cattle reduces dry brush, which can help mitigate wildfire risks—a huge issue across our state as we’ve clearly seen this year. Farmers often manage fencing, water systems, and invasive species, essentially partnering with the Park Service in land care. Removing them could lead to overgrowth, invasive species return, and ecosystem imbalances.
These don’t even mention the potential violation of legal and property rights that this settlement could represent. Some families who are being evicted are arguing that they were promised multi-generational leases or renewals and that this settlement violates those agreements. They view the closures as government overreach or a misuse of environmental law, which raises larger questions about how land use rights are defined on public lands.
But most important of all is the community and human impact. These ranchers are real people, not just political pawns. Generations of ranchers have raised families, gone to school locally, and built businesses tied to the land. The closures are seen as a forced erasure of their history of ranching in the city. Environmentalism should include human communities, not just animals and ecosystems.
Which brings us to the root issue behind this settlement and the legal battles that led to it – which is that animals are not people and people should be prioritized over animals. Should we do what we can to preserve and steward the environment? Yes! Of course. But should we place it so far above real people that livelihoods, communities, and critical agriculture is thrown out the window for it? No, yet that is exactly what is happening here.
This pulls back the curtain on our states’ policy priorities. The farm closures signal a shift in how public lands are managed, prioritizing environmental protection over saving farms. This could – and will – influence future policy on how California handles resource use and development on state and federal land. And this is because California is increasingly focusing on environmental activism to meet stated climate and biodiversity goals. This case of the tule elk is just one example of California leaning further and further into putting animal species over humans. The buyout of ranchers with $30 million in private funding sets a new model for negotiated exits from generational land use, which could influence statewide programs to look to transition more farms to other uses in the name of environmental sustainability. Plus, the settlement that ended ranching in Point Reyes was the result of persistent lawsuits by environmental groups, which demonstrates how legal pressure can reshape land policy. Other activists may now see this case as a blueprint for challenging farms they deem environmental threats elsewhere in California.
This hasn’t been the only case that we’ve seen of this shift of priorities. We’ve talked a lot about water policy, and how wildlife species like the Delta Smelt are put first rather than allowing farmers to pump the water they need for their crop yields. Federal and state regulations, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), forced reductions in agricultural water deliveries to protect the delta smelt’s habitat.[19] As a result, water was diverted away from Central Valley farmers, leading to crop losses. Farmers and rural politicians called it a case of “fish over people.”[20]
Or take the California gnatcatcher, a small bird dependent on coastal sage scrub. The bird was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, which triggered strict limits on coastal development, especially in Southern California. Real estate developers challenged the listing, arguing it blocked housing construction and economic growth. Courts upheld the protections, and large tracts of land were preserved for habitat.[21]
Or take gray wolves. This species returned to California in the 2010s after nearly a century of absence and are now protected under state law. Ranchers began to lose livestock to wolf predation and felt they had no legal way to protect their animals. Compensation and non-lethal deterrents were offered, but tensions remain high with state law still preventing ranchers or anyone from killing these gray wolves unless they threaten the life of a human. They cannot kill them to protect their livestock.[22]
The examples just go on and on, showcasing that the Endangered Species Act is often the legal tool used to prioritize wildlife over people, farms, and community development. Rural communities and industries, especially local farmers, tend to bear the brunt of these restrictions. Legal action by environmental groups plays a key role in enforcing wildlife protections, just as we are seeing happen in Point Reyes. These conflicts continue to take further and further steps forward in long-term policy shifts over land use, environmentalism, and politics.
How to Balance Environmentalism with Effective Policy
I want to go back to some basic principles about how to think about environmental policy. Care for the environment, like many other issues, must be balanced with prioritizing human life and being realistic about our goals, but unfortunately that balance often gets thrown out the window. We can absolutely say that we should care about the environment, we shouldn’t seek to kill all the animals and just watch the earth burn. But in California’s case, the problem is going so far the other way that we downplay our role as human beings to subdue the earth and to put human life first.
We should think about issues like Point Reyes farmers through the lens of a few basic principles, all held together at the same time:
1. First, the environment is important because we have limited resources that we are dependent on, and it is our job to steward those resources wisely and limit the damage where we can.
2. Second, human life far outweighs the environment, meaning that when choosing between saving animals or saving human life, humans have to come first.
3. And lastly, when it comes to matters of policy positions, we have to advocate for wise, prudent, and effective policies, which means we have to look realistically at how helpful the environmental policies will be and refuse to support those that will not actually help the environment in any meaningful way.
Let’s apply these to the Point Reyes farm closures.
First, we have to steward the environment where we can. The truth is that the farmers in Point Reyes have been doing that. These farmers have been leaders in sustainable agriculture. They’ve put a lot of thought—and money—into reducing their environmental impact, and in some cases, they’ve even helped pioneer practices that are now being adopted statewide.
A lot of these farms use rotational grazing, where cows are moved between pastures to avoid overgrazing. [23] This keeps grasses healthy, helps with carbon capture, and gives the soil a chance to recover. Some also use what is known as no-till seeding, which keeps the soil structure intact, helps it hold water, and protects the microbes that keep it fertile.[24] Then there’s manure management—farms like Point Reyes Farmstead use the manure as compost and even run it through methane digesters, turning it into energy.[25] They are literally powering half their operations with cow poop.
One of the most well-known dairies in the area, Straus Family Creamery, actually created California’s first carbon farm plan back in 2013. They’ve experimented with things like feeding cows red seaweed[26] to cut down methane emissions, and they use electric tractors powered by their own renewable energy systems. By spreading compost and rotating pasture areas, they’re not just keeping their land healthy—they’re pulling carbon from the air and locking it into the soil. That improves drought resilience too, which we know is a huge deal in California.
There are also advancements in renewable energy. Many of these farms have gone all in on renewables. Point Reyes Farmstead, for example, has a massive solar array that cuts over half a million pounds of CO₂ emissions each year.[27] And the methane digester I just mentioned isn’t just a one-off solution. Several farms are capturing methane from manure and turning it into electricity. So instead of polluting the air, it’s literally running their farms.
On top of that, many of the ranches follow USDA organic standards, meaning no synthetic chemicals or antibiotics are used.[28] Some, like Marin Sun Farms, also go even further with Certified Animal Welfare Approved practices[29]—so animals graze on pasture, and the focus is on low-stress, humane treatment.
These farmers aren’t doing this in a vacuum. They’ve teamed up with organizations like Marin Agricultural Land Trust[30] and the Marin Carbon Project to share what works and help other farmers get on board with climate solutions.[31] They also use closed-loop water systems to clean barns and irrigate fields without wasting freshwater[32]—an increasingly crucial move in a state constantly battling drought.
The conversation around Point Reyes often gets boiled down to “elk vs. cows,” but some of these farms were trying to be the model for sustainable agriculture on public land. It’s worth recognizing that these weren't just traditional operations—they were actively trying to blend conservation with food production in a way that few others have. The Point Reyes farms were working to steward the environmental resources they had and to cooperate with our state’s climate goals. This makes it completely unfair and unreasonable for environmental activist groups to target the ranchers and work to close their operations – when they have been ahead of so many other farms across our state in overall environmental impact and innovation.
Second, humans outweigh animals. We clearly see this is not the case with the Point Reyes farms. Just to reiterate, the closure of these farms will represent a loss of 20% of all agricultural land in the county,[33] and millions of dollars’ worth of annual agricultural production to the community.[34] It will displace not only the farmers who own the ranches, but hundreds of workers who support the farms, and businesses across the county who rely on the farms to purchase their products. All of that, and for what gain? That one species of elk, who were moved from a different part of California back to Point Reyes, can populate and graze completely undisturbed? Truly, who does that help? If the extinction of this species of elk means the flourishing of an entire community in terms of agriculture, then the priority should be the people, not the animals.
Lastly, we must advocate for wise, prudent, and effective policies, which means we have to look realistically at how helpful environmental policies will be. We just covered in depth how closing these farms does not help the environment because it just punishes farmers who have been leaders in sustainable agriculture. This is not wise or effective, it’s just a power play by radical environmentalists who put every animal and every plant species above human life. This is downright wrong, and it’s a tragic loss for Point Reyes and Marin County.
Action Items
We need to change the narrative across our state about environmentalism. We need to stop supporting initiatives like the ones I mentioned today that spread hysteria around saving the animals or saving the trees, and we need to instead think logically, rationally, and unemotionally about how to tackle these issues. Specifically for Point Reyes, owner of Straus Dairy Farm Albert Straus is calling on anyone who is opposed to the Point Reyes settlement to contact Doug Burgum, the Secretary of the Interior, and Jessica Bowron, Acting Director of the National Park Service, to “demand that they reverse the general management plan to allow commercial agriculture to continue at Point Reyes.”[35] He outlines that farmers need these representatives to establish an Agriculture Trust “to manage and maintain the preserve as a working agricultural landscape, so that farmers and ranchers can live and work in harmony with nature.” I have linked resources for you below on who to contact and what to say.
At the end of the day, California’s farmers aren’t just feeding us—they’re holding up a critical part of our economy, our culture, and our future. These are the people behind our milk, our cheese, our meat, our fruits and vegetables. And as we discussed, many of them are already doing the hard work of changing how agriculture works—cutting emissions, restoring soil health, conserving water, and caring for animals responsibly. We shouldn't be pitting farmers against the environment. That’s a false choice. Instead, we need to champion the farmers who are rising to the challenge, the ones innovating in real time to meet both ecological and economic needs. Because if California is serious about actually investing in the environment, we can’t do it without the people who grow our food.
Let’s invest in solutions that allow both land and livelihoods to thrive. Not either-or—but both.
Resources:
How to Contact the Department of the Interior
Secretary Doug Burgum
Department of the Interior Website
Visit: https://www.doi.gov/contact-us
There is usually a form or email address for public comments.Mailing Address
U.S. Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240Phone (Main DOI Line):
(202) 208-3100
Contacting the National Park Service
Acting Director Jessica Bowron
NPS Contact Page
Visit: https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/contactinformation.htmNational Park Service Mailing Address
National Park Service
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240Phone (NPS Main Line):
(202) 208-6843
Template of what to say:
References:
[1] Beck, John. “Deal Announced to End Most Ranching in Point Reyes National Seashore, Manage Park’s Free-roaming Elk.” The Press Democrat, January 11, 2025. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/point-reyes-national-seashore-ranches-deal-nature-conservancy/.
[2] Point Reyes Field Station. “Colonial History.” UC Berkeley, n.d. https://pointreyes.berkeley.edu/colonialhistory/.
[3] U.S. National Park Service, “Ranching History at Point Reyes - Point Reyes National Seashore,” n.d., https://www.nps.gov/pore/learn/historyculture/stories_ranching.htm.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Fraser, Laura. “Are Artisanal Foodie Brands Ruining a California National Park?” The Guardian, November 9, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/09/buzzy-foodie-brands-have-deep-roots-in-rural-california-is-it-being-ruined.
[6] Fraser, Laura. “Showdown at the Edge of the Continent.” The Phrazer (blog), January 23, 2025. https://thephrazer.substack.com/p/showdown-at-the-edge-of-the-continent.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Straus, Albert. “Dead Set on ‘Saving’ Point Reyes, Environmentalists Want to Kill Its Best Stewards.” The San Francisco Standard, March 5, 2025. https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2025/03/05/take-it-from-this-marin-dairy-farmer-whats-happening-to-point-reyes-is-a-disaster/.
[9] Valentino, Silas. “‘Feels like a death’: Point Reyes grapples with the end of an era.” SF Gate, January 15, 2025. https://www.sfgate.com/california-parks/article/point-reyes-grapples-with-the-end-of-an-era-20034105.php.
[10] Elk Fences Now. “How Ranches Became Part of National Seashore,” n.d. https://www.elkfencesnow.com/our-story.
[11] CBS News. “Environmentalists Reach Landmark Agreement With Point Reyes National Seashore, Ranchers,” January 10, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/environmentalists-agreement-tule-elk-point-reyes-ranchers/.
[12] Milstein, Grace. “Settlement Reached in Long-Standing Dispute Over Ranching at Point Reyes National Seashore — Resource Renewal Institute.” Resource Renewal Institute, February 27, 2025. https://www.rri.org/newsroom/a-new-era-for-point-reyes.
[13] U.S. National Park Service, “Ranching History at Point Reyes - Point Reyes National Seashore.”
[14] “Environmentalists Reach Landmark Agreement With Point Reyes National Seashore, Ranchers.”
[15] Kirp, David. “A Win for Environmentalists at Point Reyes Is a Loss for Almost Everyone Else.” San Francisco Chronicle, February 2, 2025. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/point-reyes-environmentalists-win-loss-20063791.php.
[16] “Environmentalists Reach Landmark Agreement With Point Reyes National Seashore, Ranchers.”
[17] Kirp, “A Win for Environmentalists at Point Reyes Is a Loss for Almost Everyone Else.”
[18] Valentino, “‘Feels like a Death’: Point Reyes Grapples with the End of an Era.”
[19] “Delta Smelt,” n.d. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Fishes/Delta-Smelt#:~:text=is%20also%20concentrated.-,Species%20Status,opens%20in%20new%20tab)).
[20] Woods, Wes, II, and Terry Collins. “California Delta Smelt Controversy Ranges From Lawsuits to Trump Executive Orders.” The Stockton Record, February 7, 2025. https://www.recordnet.com/story/news/politics/state/2025/02/07/learn-more-about-california-delta-smelt-controversy/78299774007/.
[21] Brennan, Deborah Sullivan. “Meet the Small Gray Songbird That Has Restricted so Much California Coastal Development - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, September 11, 2016. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-song-bird-20160909-snap-story.html.
[22] Rogers, Paul. “California Announces Plans to Relax Protections for Wolves as Population Grows.” Phys.Org, April 4, 2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-04-california-wolves-population.html.
[23] Straus, “Dead Set on ‘Saving’ Point Reyes, Environmentalists Want to Kill Its Best Stewards.”
[24] Basch, Jill. “Celebrating Earth Day: Our Sustainable Farming Journey.” Point Reyes Farmstead Cheese Company, April 19, 2024. https://pointreyescheese.com/blogs/the-blog/celebrating-earth-day-our-journey-in-regenerative-farming#:~:text=Our%20regenerative%20methods%20focus%20on%20rotational%20grazing%2C,conserving%20and%20recycling%20of%20water%2C%20and%20utilizing.
[25] Bergen, Teresa. “Mooo-ving Toward Clean Energy - Bluedot Living.” Bluedot Living, December 13, 2024. https://bluedotliving.com/mooo-ving-towards-clean-energy/#:~:text=On%20a%20northern%20California%20farm,digester%20from%20a%20sustainability%20perspective.
[26] Allen, Ike. “Seaweed Cut Methane From Cows in Trial.” Point Reyes Light, November 11, 2021. https://www.ptreyeslight.com/news/seaweed-cut-methane-from-cows-in-trial/#:~:text=The%20trial%20was%20sponsored%20in%20part%20by,growing%20red%20seaweed%20for%20use%20as%20feed.
[27] Basch, Jill. “A Family Farm With Solar and Sustainable Practices.” Point Reyes Farmstead Cheese Company, October 28, 2021. https://pointreyescheese.com/blogs/the-blog/a-family-farm-with-solar-and-sustainable-practices?srsltid=AfmBOooNeguLdRuJffYdS0HZdbVZOc5E51lSwxOv3Me_iUuyh0pEzbz6.
[28] Tuatini, Tessa. “150 Years of Farming in Point Reyes Comes to an End After Government Buyout.” Redwood Bark, n.d. https://redwoodbark.org/97772/news/150-years-of-farming-in-point-reyes-comes-to-an-end-after-government-buyout/.
[29] Marin Sun Farms. “About Us - Marin Sun Farms,” n.d. https://www.marinsunfarms.com/about-us/#best-practices.
[30] Marin Agricultural Land Trust. “Ranching in the Seashore - Marin Agricultural Land Trust,” February 7, 2025. https://malt.org/active-issues/ranching-the-seashore/.
[31] Guth, Anna. “Marin’S Climate Action Plan to Stress Benefits of Carbon Farming.” Point Reyes Light, September 2, 2020. https://www.ptreyeslight.com/news/marins-climate-action-plan-stress-benefits-carbon-farming/.
[32] Jill Basch, “How Sustainable Farming Methods Impact Our Cheese,” Point Reyes Farmstead Cheese Company, March 25, 2022, https://pointreyescheese.com/blogs/the-blog/how-sustainable-farming-methods-impact-our-cheese?srsltid=AfmBOorV6_G0Ljr5R-U9P4DoGWl_TkaFpbEIt82dwg0k9Bed17t6qOPI.
[33] Straus, “Dead Set on ‘Saving’ Point Reyes, Environmentalists Want to Kill Its Best Stewards.”
[34] Fraser, “Are Artisanal Foodie Brands Ruining a California National Park?”
[35] Straus, “Dead Set on ‘Saving’ Point Reyes, Environmentalists Want to Kill Its Best Stewards.”
