Court Decision Allowing Tule Elk to Continue to Die from Dehydration and Starvation Appealed by The Animal Legal Defense Fund
Plaintiffs are represented by Harvard Law School’s Animal Law & Policy Clinic
SAN FRANCISCO, CA — The Animal Legal Defense Fund and local residents, represented by Harvard Law School’s Animal Law & Policy Clinic, today appealed a recent ruling in favor of the National Park Service (NPS) in a case challenging the Park Service’s failure to protect the imperiled Tule elk at Point Reyes National Seashore in Northern California.
The lawsuit challenged the failure of the Park Service to revise its 1980 General Management Plan for the Tomales Point portion of the Point Reyes Seashore to address the fact that the elk —who are required to be protected by federal law — were dying slow and prolonged deaths from starvation and dehydration. Elk cannot reach water and forage south of a fence that the National Park Service maintains along the southern border of their confined habitat on the Tomales Point peninsula. The fence was erected decades ago at the request of the cattle ranchers who do not want the native elk competing for food and water with their for-profit cattle.
“Tule elk continue to die from starvation in the Point Reyes National Seashore under the current management plan,” says Animal Legal Defense Fund Managing Attorney Christopher Berry. “The National Park Service must follow the law and revise its management plan for the National Seashore in a timely manner to avoid needless death and suffering.”
“In recent successive drought years, I’ve seen emaciated, malnourished elk endure and die from hunger and thirst while trapped there, to benefit cattle ranches,” says Plaintiff Laura Chariton, a resident of California. “I continue to be disappointed by the lack of consideration, respect, or empathy for this magnificent species.”
The case was filed after several years of elk numbers plummeting due to a lack of water and food. The lawsuit alleged that the National Park Service had violated its mandatory duty to revise the general management plan, issued more than forty years ago. They also sought an emergency injunction to require the National Park Service to provide supplemental food and water to the elk to prevent additional suffering from emaciation and thirst — and death.
Although the district judge denied the request for emergency relief, he expressed concern for the elk and expedited the case on the merits. In response to the suit, the National Park Service began the process for updating the general management plan but to date, the revision has not occurred, and the elk continue to suffer and die from confinement during California’s seasonal summer-autumn drought.
On February 27, 2023, the district court judge issued its ruling on the merits, holding that the National Park Service had no statutory duty to amend the plan. Since the Animal Legal Defense Fund and additional plaintiffs disagree with the decision — which is also at odds with a prior ruling by another judge of the same Court — the decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Join the Animal Legal Defense Fund's email list to stay up to date on lawsuits, legislation, and regulations affecting animals.
Court Allows Lawsuit Against Tiger Creek Animal Sanctuary to ProceedFirst ruling pertaining to recently enacted Big Cat Public Safety ActJune 7, 2023 Press Release
Mink VIRUS Act Introduced in the U.S. House to End Cruel and Dangerous Mink FarmingBill will reduce the risk of zoonotic disease transmission by phasing out mink farming and help operators transition out of the industryJune 1, 2023 Press Release
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of California Foie Gras Ban After Prop 12 VictoryThird denial to review first state-wide ban, starting in 2014May 22, 2023 News