"Investigative journalism"? Cut me a break. I found Tess Elliott's article to be little more than a personal, vindictive character assassination job on Jon Jarvis, devoid of meaningful facts, and attempting to elevate local politics into an issue of national importance.
I am not qualified to assess the National Park Service's science, though I do not doubt that they may have misrepresented or distorted their science. However, both Elliott and her defenders on this web site commit three important errors in my opinion.
First, they conflate the actions of park personnel and the later actions of Mr. Jarvis. While I would like to give Elliott and her supporters the benefit of the doubt, I suspect that they have done so intentionally, to create an air of conspiracy. Second, they ascribe motives both to Point Reyes personnel and to Mr. Jarvis that they cannot possibly know.
Finally, Elliott and her defenders generalize about the entire National Park Service and its scientific integrity from a single case. More than 20,000 National Park Service employees manage nearly 400 disparate units, and to impugn the reputation of an entire organization based on one's subjective experience in a situation in which the author is a participant calls into question the intellectual honesty of the writer and those who have jumped to her defense.
I have no idea what the Point Reyes Light received a Pulitzer Prize for, but it could not have been for this kind of writing, which is what I would expect from any little weekly newspaper anywhere.