Oyster Zone QR
All posts in category Articles & Letters
05-15-2013 FAQ’s About Drakes Bay Oyster Co.
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on May 17, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/05-15-2013-faqs-about-drakes-bay-oyster-co/
05-14-2013 Russian River Times “What lies in Drake’s Estero”
Journalism is supposed to be the first draft of history, not the first rewrite of press releases and sound bites. In recent weeks, some journalists reporting on the Estero controversy say ‘they would not touch the science,” not realizing the irony that they are essentially saying they are reporting without knowledge. The word ‘science’ itself comes from the Latin scientia, ”to know.”
Russian River Times posted 05-14-2013
What lies in Drake’s Estero
Journalism is supposed to be the first draft of history, not the first rewrite of press releases and sound bites. In recent weeks, some journalists reporting on the Estero controversy say ‘they would not touch the science,” not realizing the irony that they are essentially saying they are reporting without knowledge. The word ‘science’ itself comes from the Latin scientia, ”to know.”To report on scientific issues, it is not necessary for reporters to ‘do’ science. For example, to return to the issue of sound as a major impact in the Estero: when the NPS and its EIS consultant substitute the sound of a high- powered jet ski for a small four stroke outboard–as National Park Service did in preparing the Environmental Impact Statement–and claim the Estero is damaged by the sound, it raises issues that can only be answered by the basic journalism questions, Who? What? When? Where? Why?
The standard for journalistic coverage of the Drake’s Bay Oyster Company controversy seems to be based on guilt by six degrees of separation. The bulk of the recent reporting on the ‘ right wing conspiracy to destroy the wilderness act’ claim against DBOC is based solely on the fact that one attorney representing DBOC’s Kevin Lunny is a Republican who worked in Washington for a few months for a charity funded by right-wing interests.
By these standards, we assume that if the oyster-farm opponents report to the press that a lawyer supporting DBOC had defended an arsonist, this would be proof that Kevin Lunny, the DBOC owner, is burning down the Estero. Much of the general press has shown an equal lack of standards in the other allegations against DBOC, with no real investigation, relying instead on unsubstantiated claims in the press releases of oyster-farm opponents, the latest of which is merely the last in a long line of attempts by National Park Service and its supporters to smear the Lunny family and present them as some sort of environmental criminals.
The press has no excuse for this type of journalism, which merely restates claims from anti-oyster-farm press releases without even the most basic fact checking. There is a marvelous expression in the British press, ‘Churnalism,’ which aptly describes much of the press and TV coverage, e.g. the regurgitation of recent press releases from Amy Trainer of West Marin Environmental Action Committee and the PBS Newshour report, “Strange Bedfellows Join Fight to Keep Oyster Farm in Operation.” There is simply no excuse for this type of inept and biased reporting.
Minimal research uncovers the facts. Both the National Academy of Science study (which found NPS had misrepresented the science), and the Marine Mammal Committee report (whose experts found no incompatibility with oyster operations and the seal population), have summaries and complete lists of all documents on their website. These including letters from the oyster-farm opponents and supporters. Likewise, the response to the draft EIS contains statements from National Marine Fisheries, Cal Fish and Game that conflict directly with the allegations of the oyster-farm opponents.
Small local papers like the Russian River Times report stories that impact their communities, often over several years, while the larger press tends to only pick up on the sensational, often from unsubstantiated press releases and statements from advocacy groups. The truth is that NPS and its allies have conducted a long national campaign to portray the Lunnys as environmental criminals, damaging wilderness for personal gain. Locally, the Lunnys are known as a third-generation ranching family, well respected as responsible stewards and valued members of the community. Examples include their assistance with grazing research to support rangeland carbon sequestration, supporting shellfish restoration in San Francisco Bay, local composting projects, and working with endangered species restoration.
Ironically, the NPS also celebrated the Lunny’s contributions in a 2007 publication about stewardship in National Parks entitled, ‘Stewardship Begins with People.’ Page 45 shows a photo of Kevin Lunny and Seashore rancher David Evans and the statement that ”…both have been recognized for their environmental stewardship and innovation.” In a currently available on-line version of this NPS document, Lunny has been literally airbrushed out. He was made to disappear! What is disturbing is that the Lunny’s environmental stewardship is ignored in most of the press coverage where NPS and its allies have attempted to destroy the Lunny’s reputation for stewardship. Not five months after the publication date back in 2007, Point Reyes Seashore Superintendent Don Neubacher told Marin County Supervisors that Lunny was an environmental criminal.
The “smear Lunny” campaign began in the spring 2006 Sierra Club Yodeler magazine by Gordon Bennett, then Chair, Marin Chapter. Even an internet review will show that much of the campaign against the Lunnys originated with one individual, plus the direct involvement of a then-retired major Sacramento political player, active in West Marin after leaving his job with a major environmental lobbying group under a cloud.
Anything beyond the most cursory examination would find multiple cases of hidden and misrepresented data, not to mention deliberately altered photographs used without permission, known false statements about endangered species and the creation of a new hypothesis of harm each time previous claims were discredited.
Oyster-farm opponents and NPS would have you believe that sound (violations of soundscape standards) is a major problem in the Estero, implying that the experts on the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel and the seal experts on the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) panel made a serious mistake in failing to identify sound as a major issue. In their 2009 letter to the MMC, which lead to its investigation, Neil Desai of NPCA and Gordon Bennett, then of the Sierra Club, failed to even reference sound or raise the issue.
Gordon Bennett became involved in West Marin environmental activities after he sold his Westbrae Natural Foods business to the Hain Group in 1997. He unfortunately invested much of the proceeds with the infamous Bernie Madoff before becoming active in West Marin environmental issues. Bennett, in his role as Chair of the Marin County Sierra Club group, posted in an article in the Spring 2006 Sierra Club Yodeler, with false claims about criminal destruction of eelgrass, misleading claims invasive aquatic species, and distorted claims about marine debris (conveniently omitting DBOC’s clean-up efforts at Drakes Estero both on shore and in the Estero.)
Bennett is also the first author of the false claims that Lunny was obliged to vacate the lease by 2012. (See Russian River Times “What Was the Deal?”) Bennett appears to have become obsessed with eliminating the oyster company, filing multiple complaints with multiple government agencies, relying on convoluted ‘interpretation’ of documents.
The classic was a September 2009 letter from Bennett, as Sierra Club Marin Group Parks Chair, to multiple government agencies, claiming that DBOC was violating its NPS permit by illegally selling condiments in violation of his Special Use Permit, thus becoming a restaurant! Locally, this became known as the “illegal catsup complaint.
The letter was addressed to California Department of Fish and Game, Marin Department of Health Services, State Board of Equalization and Point Reyes National Seashore. Bennett bases his complaint on the one-letter difference in spelling between complimentary (i.e. given for free) and complementary (i.e. adding to something), ignoring the fact that DBOC, by the specific terms of its NPS permit, was legally allowed to sell the produce of the family’s adjoining ranch. (The complaints about the shellfish are dealt with here.) This is just one example of Bennett poring over reams of documents in an attempt to find some supposed glitch in language or definition to cause trouble for the Lunnys.
Bennett’s LinkedIn page shows that he ceased to serve as a Sierra Club chairperson in March 2011. The Sierra Club has declined to made any statements regarding his removal, but Congressman Pete McCloskey, author of the endangered-species act and supporter of the oyster farm, informed the Russian River Times that he had been told by the executive director of the Sierra Club that Bennett had been ‘fired.’
Bennett resurfaced with Neil Desai of NPCA, co-signing an August 16 2011 complaint to the Coastal Commission, in which Bennett signs as President of Save Our Seashore. The letter makes unsubstantiated statements like”…their oyster operations within the Estero are considered unmanageable by many in the public”, and “chronic lateral channel inclusions which can include amongst other things, humans, boats and loud music, which can prevent seals from using what would otherwise be suitable habitat.” These are not ‘facts,’ but allegations, none of which were accurate.
Investigation of Bennett’s involvement leads to reports in the Nation of an amazingly revelatory discussion with Tess Elliot and Kevin Lunny, wherein Bennett candidly admits to lying. The conversation is included in letters to the editor about Elliot’s September 9, 2008 Nation article, entitled “Scientific Integrity Lost in America’s Parks” Here are the key excerpts: “Bennett made several confessions during our post-show chat. (Listen to the KQED program with Senator Feinstein, Gordon Bennett, Tess Elliot and others here) “The park knew it had no evidence when it made those charges,” he said, excusing his own malfeasance of lying to a 50,000-strong audience. He had also claimed that the Point Reyes Wilderness Act mandated the oyster farm’s removal in 2012. “You know the Wilderness Act says nothing about 2012,” I said. Again, Bennett acknowledged misleading listeners. ”If you know these claims are false, why don’t you remove them from your website?” I asked. “The other side spreads misinformation, too,” he replied. I shamed Bennett for attaching the Sierra Club’s name to his false claims. He replied that he did so as a buffer against lawsuit.
Bennett’s LinkedIn page also claims that he has been President of Save Our Seashore, which he claims has existed since 1994, yet he has not released any information to the public. Perhaps not coincidentally, Save Our Seashore is the name of an organization formed in 1994 by the late Peter Behr, one of the true founders of Point Reyes National Seashore, who did much in creation of the pastoral zone that protected the ranches and oyster farm and brought them into the park. Here is a 1969 TV interview with Behr regarding the Seashore, and on his views about environmental campaigning.
National Parks Conservation Association’s Neil Desai, is also a key player and founder of the SaveDrakesBay coalition website, since taken down and parked on GoDaddy.com, replaced with yet another site. His participation in the smear campaign was previously documented in the Russian River Times, involving nationally released false statements, doctoring photographs and making allegations that he knew to be misleading. Desai nationally distributed false information to deliberately distort public comments on the NPS EIS, authoring a notice that claimed four species at Drakes Estero, including the harbor seal, were endangered. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, a sister agency to NPS, none were endangered (or even threatened).
He has worked closely with Amy Trainer, current EAC director who replaced Fred Smith after the start of the anti-Lunny campaign who herself has originated many of the misleading statements, such as this recent patently false claim that the Lunnys are making millions from the oyster company.
That campaign in many ways resembles the worst of the California initiative politics. This is not surprising, given the involvement of Jerry Meral, whose LinkedIn page not only shows his role with EAC, but that he ‘managed’ the former EAC executive director, Fred Smith. It also displays his well-known relationship with other environmental groups, specifically his role as executive director of the Planning and Conservation League (PCL). Meral resigned his position in 2002 after the defeat of Proposition 51. He then became active in local politics and with the EAC, contemporaneous with the start of their campaign against Drakes Estero.
A blunt editorial in the December 5, 2002 Sacramento Bee documents Meral’s methods: finding a cause, assembling a coalition, claiming to be protecting the public’s rights, and logrolling the various factions involved while seeking funding to drive publicity and enact the deal.
The editorial closes: ”Meral always argued that the ends justified his means. But (in the case of Prop. 51) the voters weren’t buying. When the questionable means come to overshadow the ends, maybe it’s time to retire the method, too.”
When journalists fail to ask basic questions before reporting on a story based on press releases from advocacy groups, they do little to inform the public, and contribute greatly to polarization. Journalism is not sticking a microphone in someone’s face and reading press releases. It is facts, documents and history and informed questions. The job of journalism is to make sure it is not being spun, and to inform, not incite. Tell the public the facts and what you have found out about ‘Who? What? When? Where? Why?’
Editors Note:
We are including in the on line version of the article the full text of the Elliot letter in the Nation, and would point out that the article and its letters, including those from then Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope and Dr. Laura Watt of Sonoma State, who wrote her PHD thesis on the working landscapes of Point Reyes, are well worth reading. The editors removed Gordon Bennett’s response to Elliot because of factual errors.
You may read all of the Russian River Times reporting on the estero here.
Nation Web Letter
I once shared a homemade Pugliese tart with Gordon Bennett in a Starbucks in San Francisco. We had been guests on a show on public radio, along with Kevin Lunny of Drakes Bay Oyster Company. Bennett had made several claims that I knew were false. As we exited the sound room, I suggested we keep chatting, and over slices of pastry I had packed in my purse, I asked Bennett how he could lie on air.
Speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, Bennett alleged that Lunny’s oyster farm was a menace to seals and eelgrass. Each of us knew these claims were debunked in a report by the National Academy of Sciences, which found that the park had misrepresented its own data. There was no evidence supporting the claims that the park and Bennett had levied against Lunny for over two years. The academy report brought to light what many suspected: a campaign to portray the farm as a threat, and justify its closure.
Bennett made several confessions during our post-show chat. “The park knew it had no evidence when it made those charges,” he said, excusing his own malfeasance of lying to a 50,000-strong audience. He had also claimed that the Point Reyes Wilderness Act mandated the oyster farm’s removal in 2012. “You know the Wilderness Act says nothing about 2012,” I said. Again, Bennett acknowledged misleading listeners.
“If you know these claims are false, why don’t you remove them from your website?” I asked. “The other side spreads misinformation, too,” he replied. I shamed Bennett for attaching the Sierra Club’s name to his false claims. He replied that he did so as a buffer against lawsuit. “Why don’t you just tell the truth?” Lunny asked. “Then you won’t get sued.”
Bennett was quiet. I had an epiphany. This man, whose reckless behavior has shaped the Drakes Estero debate, does not hesitate to use the power of his title to mislead the public. For him, the end justifies the means. As he put it to me that day, wilderness is like a church. Bennett pursues his wilderness-church with religious zeal. When I wrote the article for The Nation I expected a response from Bennett–but the angry and libelous tone of his letter alarmed me. It is impossible to rebut the numerous false statements in this space, so I will pick only a few.
On May 5, the National Academy of Sciences announced that a Point Reyes National Seashore report “selectively presented, over-interpreted and misrepresented” studies of the oyster farm’s ecological effects. That day, Jon Jarvis told the press that he thanked the academy for agreeing with his conclusions. What on earth did he mean? The report explicitly dismissed his conclusions. Later I discovered that Jarvis had given the academy a corrected version of the park report, but had neglected to make this version public. The older versions of the report–each containing claims of harm–kept circulating, while the corrected version remained hidden. So Jarvis was pleased that the academy agreed with his secret retractions. But Jarvis did not stop there. “We agree with some conclusions in the academy report, and disagree with others,” he said. Everyone was confused. The academy had dismissed each of the park’s claims, and Jarvis’s only challenge was a tangential point that was not even in the academy’s charter, concerning whether or not native oysters existed in Drakes Estero and therefore influenced its historic baseline ecology. Jarvis said they did not. Yet the waterside shed where Lunny sells his oysters is a stone’s throw from a gigantic midden, a heap of shells left as proof that native peoples enjoyed the estero’s salty bounty.
In his letter, Bennett makes an outlandish reversal, claiming it is the academy–not the park service–that “selectively presented, over-interpreted and misrepresented” evidence. His proof? A two-page explanation written by a man with a math degree from the University of Pennsylvania that is so flawed it is laughable.
Meanwhile, he attacks Goodman, the biologist who uncovered the park service’s misuse of data. Bennett claims Goodman is not a biologist. In fact, Goodman graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Stanford University with a BS in biology, earned his PhD in zoology, with a specialty in neurobiology, from UC Berkeley, and was a tenured professor at both of those schools for twenty-five years. He is a former chair of the life sciences board for the National Academy of Sciences. Each of Goodman’s allegations was borne out by the academy’s report.
Readers must decide whether Bennett’s claims hold water. Readers must decide who is making ad hominem attacks. I have suggested that Jarvis, now approved by the Senate for directorship of the National Park Service, has shown disregard for science. His loyalty to the troops trumps his loyalty to the truth.
Tess Elliott
Bolinas, CA
Oct 4 2009 – 2:14pm
IF ANY OF THE ABOVE LINKS DO NOT WORK PLEASE GO DIRECTLY TO THE RUSSIAN RIVER TIMES POST AT:
https://russianrivertimes.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/what-lies-in-drakes-estero/
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on May 15, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/05-14-2013-russian-river-times-what-lies-in-drakes-estero/
05-14-2013 Greenwire – by Emily Yehle: Rushed USGS report misrepresented biologist’s findings
“The U.S. Geological Survey published a report that misrepresented a biologist’s findings, lending support to the National Park Service’s claims that a California oyster farm disturbs nearby seals.
USGS is the latest agency to get sucked into the years-long controversy over whether the National Park Service manipulated science to shore up public support for closing Drakes Bay Oyster Co. In the latest twist, documents show USGS reported that a series of photos linked oyster boats to disturbed seals — when, in fact, a marine biologist had told the agency that the photos showed no such link.”
Greenwire
3. INTERIOR:
Rushed USGS report on oyster farm misrepresented biologist’s findings
Emily Yehle, E&E reporter
Published: Tuesday, May 14, 2013
The U.S. Geological Survey published a report that misrepresented a biologist’s findings, lending support to the National Park Service’s claims that a California oyster farm disturbs nearby seals.
USGS is the latest agency to get sucked into the years-long controversy over whether the National Park Service manipulated science to shore up public support for closing Drakes Bay Oyster Co. In the latest twist, documents show USGS reported that a series of photos linked oyster boats to disturbed seals — when, in fact, a marine biologist had told the agency that the photos showed no such link.
The inaccuracy is buried in a 27-page, somewhat technical report USGS completed at the behest of NPS. But it cuts to the core of the passionate debate over whether the farm’s activities disturb the seals that breed on a protected sandbar in Drakes Bay.
Former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced last year that he would not renew the farm’s lease in Point Reyes National Seashore, ending more than 70 years of mariculture in Drakes Bay. But the farm continues to fight the decision, filing a lawsuit that claims, among other things, that Salazar did not properly follow the National Environmental Policy Act.
Drakes Bay Oyster Co. is still open, operating under an emergency injunction. A U.S. district court judge denied the farm’s request for a permanent injunction until the lawsuit is resolved — and today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco will hear oral arguments in the farm’s appeal of that decision.
But what has become a tangled web of legal arguments began with one claim from NPS six years ago: that the farm disturbed seals.
The USGS report was the last piece of uncriticized evidence.
‘Breathing down my neck’
Last year, NPS released an environmental impact statement that concluded the farm’s continued operations would have “long-term moderate adverse impacts” on seals. But the agency has had a hard time proving that impact, prompting a series of missteps that started with a false claim in 2007 that the oyster operation had decreased the harbor seal population by 80 percent.
Since then, evidence has been shaky at best. The Marine Mammal Commission concluded in 2011 that NPS had “scant” data to prove a disturbance of harbor seals; a peer-reviewed article claiming evidence in fact showed only weak correlation. That left only one report indicating a potential disturbance: the USGS review of about 165,000 photos taken of Drakes Bay in 2008.
On the whole, the review is careful to point out that the photos are of poor quality and little use. But USGS also reports that on two days, boat traffic was “directly connected, or at least associated with,” disturbing seals enough that they flushed into the water.
The environmental impact statement, in turn, exaggerates that finding, claiming that the USGS report “attributed” two flushing disturbances to boat traffic.
Both are wrong. Brent Stewart, a senior research scientist at Hubbs-Seaworld Research Institute, concluded that the photos did not show boats disturbing seals on either of the two days. Stewart is listed on the USGS report as an author — and his observations are the basis for the USGS conclusions on seal disturbances.
The reason for the inaccuracy in the USGS report is unclear. But a series of emails reveals that the agency rushed to complete its analysis, due to pressure from NPS.
William Lellis, the deputy associate director of ecosystems at USGS, assigned the project to research ecologist Carrie Blakeslee on Feb. 7, 2012. In an email, he wrote that the analysis needed to be done by the end of March “to brief Secretary Salazar who needs to make a decision on Wilderness Status for the park.”
But by May, it still wasn’t complete, and USGS began to apply pressure to Stewart to submit his commissioned report.
“NPS will be breathing down my neck this week, when do you think you’ll be able to transmit something?” Laurie Allen, a USGS senior science adviser, wrote to Stewart.
Stewart did review a draft of the final report and did not initially point out the inaccuracy in the text. But the version he reviewed did not include the final figures and appendix, which also contained errors.
USGS publicly released its report Nov. 26. Three days later, Salazar announced he would not renew the farm’s lease.
But in early December, Lellis reached out to Stewart, asking him to again review the photos on the two days when boats allegedly disturbed seals. Stewart responded with a supplemental analysis that found no such disturbance.
On one of the days, the seals moved around, but “I don’t consider this to be a flush but rather likely a startle of most seals owing to a sudden movement or startle of one or two seals with or without external stimulus,” Stewart wrote.
USGS never corrected its report. In an email to Greenwire, USGS spokeswoman Anne-Berry Wade declined to comment.
“Because of the ongoing litigation, it would be inappropriate for the USGS to offer any specific comments,” she said, adding that the report was peer-reviewed and has been publicly available on the USGS website since it was published.
Another claim of misconduct
The watchdog agency Cause of Action released the emails this week, arguing that they show Salazar based his decision to close the farm on faulty science. The right-leaning group is representing Drakes Bay Oyster Co. in its lawsuit and obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request.
But that request — which asked for all documents related to the USGS report — did not produce Stewart’s supplemental analysis. Corey Goodman, a neurobiologist who has spent years double-checking research from NPS, obtained that analysis directly from Stewart. Yesterday, he filed a misconduct complaint — the latest of several — to new Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, claiming that USGS and NPS have deceived the public.
Interior declined to comment, citing the ongoing court case.
Goodman wants Jewell to convene a blue-ribbon panel of independent scientists to investigate the allegations, an unlikely scenario.
The farm operators, meanwhile, hope it will help their argument that Salazar relied on science to close the farm. When Salazar announced his decision last year, he emphasized that it was not based on science but rather on NPS policy and the need to remove the farm and restore the area to full wilderness.
But the emails show Interior’s top officials were briefed on the USGS report in the days before Salazar’s decision.
“NPS and their supporters keep saying that the science isn’t important in the federal court case, but that just isn’t true,” Drakes Bay Oyster Co. owner Kevin Lunny said. “The Department of Justice lawyers have used these false science claims to argue that the public good favors the removal of our oyster farm, and with it, the loss of 40 percent of the state’s oysters and 30 jobs.”
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on May 14, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/05-14-2013-greenwire-emily-yehle-rushed-usgs-report-misrepresented-biologists-findings/
04/25/2013 Dr. Jeff Creque on Red Herrings in Drakes Estero
Red Herrings in Drakes Estero
Jeff Creque, Ph.D. Land Stewardship Consultation, responded on April 25 to a letter in Marin Voice written by Dr. Marty Griffin. Below is his response as it appeared in the West Marin Citizen, the Marin IJ, as well as the Press Democrat.
Dr. Marty Griffin’s years of service to the cause of conservation in Marin are appreciated, but his opinion piece (MV, 5/2/13) reminds me of Michael Moore’s comment at the Oscars some years ago; we do indeed live in fictitious times.
Dr. Griffin reviews the many charges brought against the Drakes Bay Oyster Farm (DBOF) by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in its ongoing collaboration with the National Park Service (NPS) to eliminate aquaculture on over 55% of the State of California’s water bottom shellfish leases, but he fails to explain the CCC’s ham-handed attempts to regulate an activity over which it has no statutory authority.
If DBOF is, technically, out of compliance with CCC regulations, it is due entirely to the success of the bureaucratic pincer move deployed jointly by the CCC and NPS. There have been no “expanded operations” by the oyster farm. Johnson’s Oyster Company (JOC) harvested some 800,000 pounds annually prior to the company’s collapse in 2004. DBOF has gradually rebuilt the farm’s annual harvest to about 400,000 pounds, half that of JOC.
Oysters may be an irrelevant luxury food item for Dr. Griffin, but they remain one of the few sustainable sources of marine protein on the planet. While global fisheries collapse, sea levels rise and oceans acidify, estuary restoration efforts throughout the world attempt to restore oyster beds as rapidly as possible. Only in Drakes Estero are reputed environmentalists working overtime to destroy our capacity to produce what the Monterey Bay Aquarium calls a “super green” sea food.
Dr. Griffin might read the National Academy of Sciences report he misquotes to learn more about Didemnum vexillum, which is ubiquitous in estuaries globally. If he did, he would know oyster culture did not cause its presence in Drakes Estero, and it is not possible to eradicate, even if all cultured oysters were removed. He would learn that the NAS found no evidence of environmental harm from shellfish aquaculture in the Estero and recommended development of a Collaborative Management Plan to enable aquaculture to continue, and to address the concerns raised in this overheated debate with legitimate scientific inquiry, in an adaptive management framework.
Most importantly, I want to assure Dr. Griffin that there is nothing frivolous about our lawsuit, undertaken only after much deliberation and careful legal analysis by our pro bono legal team. The anguish expressed during our pre-filing deliberations by Ms. Faber, whose own lifetime of laudable service to the cause of conservation in Marin rivals even Dr. Griffin’s, including her tireless efforts to bring about the Coastal Act and her service on the original CCC, was, for me, particularly sobering.
As made clear in our legal brief, the CCC has greatly exceeded its authority in this matter, working against its own statutory requirement to support coastal dependent activities, particularly aquaculture, and both replicating and exceeding authorities of the Fish and Game Commission, in direct violation of the Coastal Act.
With 14.5 million residents to feed in the SF Bay Area today, and 21 million projected by mid-century, the importance of this critical, sustainable, nearly perfect marine protein resource is increasingly obvious to all who care about the future of sustainable food production in our region. DBOF is an archetypical example of exactly the type of food production we need more, not less of. It is part of the solution to our growing dilemma; it is most certainly not part of the problem.
I urge those in our community who share our concerns to become involved in this issue while there is still time.
Jeffrey Creque, Ph.D.
Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture
908 Western Ave
Petaluma 94952
707/765-1059
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on May 13, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/04252013-dr-jeff-creque-on-red-herrings-in-drakes-estero/
05-11-2013 Letter to the editor of Marin IJ from Jeannette Pontacq, former editor of Coastal Post
In response to Lynn Hamilton of Occidental, who wants to ‘save’ the Point Reyes ‘wilderness from our local oyster company on Drake’s Estero (May 11 letter to the editor), I would like to respectfully add …
There is not one millimeter of true wilderness anywhere in the Point Reyes National Park. It has millions of visitors each year, in all seasons, and maintains trails and campsites throughout. It is a wonderful place, but not wilderness. It is a large park adjacent to a huge urban corridor. Having hiked in wild places all over the world, I am continuously amazed at anyone thinking one can just make ‘wilderness’ out of whole cloth.
Drake’s Bay, in particular, has been used for many generations by local Indians and immigrants as a ‘place of oysters.’ This is documented reality. The Park itself has seen heavy use by cattle over the decades, some of which fell over those cliffs looking out over the ocean. Kayakers ply those waters regularly. Cattle all around poop in the water. The ghosts of long-gone Indians hover over the oyster beds.
The vast majority of locals on the coast know that it is important to keep our food supply sustainable and here. Drake’s Bay Oysters provides at least 40% of all oysters in California. If they are driven out by a false image of the Park and the locals, we will need to import them from up north.
Young people on ranches all over West Marin have been making hand-painted signs to show their support for this food supply. Opponents have been defacing them. Opponents seem to think they have the backing of the majority of locals. Wrong! So very wrong! Coastal locals are a pragmatic bunch and support their food supply and tradition. Just because the Point Reyes National Seashore is there does not make it the arbiter of locals’ reality. This is not Disneyland!
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on May 12, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/05-11-2013-letter-to-the-editor-of-marin-ij-from-jeannette-pontacq-former-editor-of-coastal-post/
05-10-2013 Russian River Times – What Was The Deal? by Sarah Rolph
“The story told by anti-oyster farm activists is that the Lunnys reneged on a deal. These activists have linked that story with another story about “wilderness,” claiming that the public was promised Drakes Estero would be wilderness in 2012. In fact, it’s the Park Service and those activists that changed the deal on the Lunnys and the public.
In 1976, Congress considered designating Drakes Estero as “wilderness.” But the Department of Interior and the Park Service told Congress that Drakes Estero could not become a wilderness until California gave up its rights to lease Drakes Estero. Congress agreed, and it removed the wilderness designation for Drakes Estero in the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act. Legally, Drakes Estero cannot become wilderness until California gives up its rights (which it has not done).
For more than 30 years after 1972, the Park Service supported continued and even expanded oyster farming in perpetuity. For reasons the Park Service has not explained, however, its position changed completely after the Lunnys purchased the oyster farm in early 2005.”
What Was the Deal?
Posted on May 10, 2013by russianrivertimes
By Sarah Rolph
The story told by anti-oyster farm activists is that the Lunnys reneged on a deal. These activists have linked that story with another story about “wilderness,” claiming that the public was promised Drakes Estero would be wilderness in 2012. In fact, it’s the Park Service and those activists that changed the deal on the Lunnys and the public.
The oyster farm’s onshore operations are governed by a 1972 Reservation of Use and Occupancy (RUO, a leaselike agreement). The original RUO provided for an initial 40-year term. The RUO has an explicit renewal clause, so that onshore operations could continue beyond 40 years as long as the oyster farm has a valid California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) lease in Drakes Estero. The oyster farm’s CFGC lease is currently valid until 2029.
In 1976, Congress considered designating Drakes Estero as “wilderness.” But the Department of Interior and the Park Service told Congress that Drakes Estero could not become a wilderness until California gave up its rights to lease Drakes Estero. Congress agreed, and it removed the wilderness designation for Drakes Estero in the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act. Legally, Drakes Estero cannot become wilderness until California gives up its rights (which it has not done).
For more than 30 years after 1972, the Park Service supported continued and even expanded oyster farming in perpetuity. For reasons the Park Service has not explained, however, its position changed completely after the Lunnys purchased the oyster farm in early 2005.
Early Support for Oyster Farm Upgrade
Just 17 years ago, when the Johnson Oyster Company wanted to upgrade on-shore operations at what is now Drakes Bay Oyster Farm, the Park Service was in favor of the project. Superintendent Neubacher backed the plan with a letter to the loan officer at the Bank of Oakland.
In his November 22, 1996 letter, Neubacher assured the bank: “As stated previously, the NPS would like the improvements to occur. In fact, the NPS has worked with Marin County planners to insure the facilities attain county approval. Moreover, the Park’s General Management Plan also approved the continued use of the oyster company operation at Johnsons on Drakes Estero.”
In 1998 Neubacher conducted an environmental assessment (EA) for the upgrade project that found the project would have “no significant impact” on the environment. There was no discussion of a mandatory end-date of 2012, and no concerns about legal issues or wilderness status. None of the environmental groups now calling for DBOC’s eviction opposed the plan.
Bait and Switch
According to Kevin Lunny, at the time of purchase Neubacher promised (but not in writing) that he would put three SUPs into the name of DBOC – one for the septic system area, one for the water well and pipeline area, and one for the ancillary use area (2.2 upland acres surrounding the 1.4 acre RUO).
“Don kept his word for the septic and the well SUPs,” says Lunny. “But the Ancillary Use SUP, which had been expired and never renewed and never charged or paid for by the Johnsons since 1997, was not put into DBOC’s name as promised.”
After the Lunnys purchased the oyster farm and spent a small fortune cleaning up the operation, instead of putting the Ancillary Use SUP in DBOC’s name, Neubacher rewrote this SUP to include a new clause requiring that the oyster farm vacate the premises in 2012. Explains Lunny, “Don attempted to contractually remove our chance for renewal seven years before the expiration, cancelling the renewal clause we had spent months talking about.”
NPS Director Bomar Intervenes
Given the extreme change in the agreement, this was a permit the Lunnys could not and did not sign. The Lunnys were supported in this decision by both Senator Feinstein and then-director of the National Park Service Mary Bomar.
Senator Feinstein became involved in early May, 2007 at the request of the Marin County Board of Supervisors. The Supervisors had become alarmed at the false science created by the NPS and the false rumors Neubacher spread about the Lunnys.
At a meeting in Olema, CA on July 21, 2007 (attended by Senator Feinstein, Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey, NPS Director Mary Bomar, NPS Regional Director Jon Jarvis, Superintendent Neubacher, DOI Solicitor’s Office attorney Molly Ross, Dr. Corey Goodman, and Kevin Lunny), Director Bomar removed Neubacher from the negotiations and ordered Jarvis to deal directly with the Lunnys.
Bomar specifically ordered Jarvis to remove the surrender clause added by Neubacher. The Jarvis rewrite of the SUP added multiple unjustified restrictions and new assertions of jurisdiction, but once the surrender clause was removed in 2008, the Lunnys signed the permit, considering it the best option available.
A Field Solicitor’s Opinion
The one document that is often used to support claims of non-renewability is a 2004 local field solicitor’s opinion, a letter erroneously concluding that the RUO could not be renewed. That opinion was provided to the Lunnys in early 2005, after they had taken over the oyster farm and spent over a quarter million dollars to clean up the operation.
Department of Justice lawyers have admitted in federal court that DBOC was not given the opinion until 2005, after DBOC had taken over. Yet the DoJ lawyers, the NPS, and the wilderness activists handle this fact dishonestly. They told the court and they tell the public that “Lunny was provided the opinion before escrow closed.” The close of escrow depended on NPS putting all three SUPs into DBOC’s name, and NPS failed to uphold their promise to do so. Because NPS failed to issue the third SUP, escrow never formally closed, but with the signing of the permit in April of 2008 it was considered as good as closed.
An Unexplained Shift
From the beginning of his tenure as Superintendent up until 2005, Neubacher appeared to the public to be managing the Estero as a responsible superintendent of Point Reyes National Seashore, working with all constituents concerning the fate of the oyster farm.
The public has not been told what changed in 2005. But clearly, beginning then, the Park Service at Point Reyes departed from responsible management and began acting in service of an agenda that has not been shared with the public. Regardless of one’s views on wilderness, oysters, or commercial farming, one ought to be alarmed when a government agency decides to renege on deals and rewrite history.
The public’s deal with the Park Service is that we will give them our tax dollars and they will spend them in accordance with the law. Like any citizen and taxpayer, the Lunnys had every right to expect that Neubacher and Jarvis and NPS would act lawfully. The Lunnys and the community will not rest until this injustice is corrected.
Here is a link to the article as it appears on the Russian River Times
http://russianrivertimes.wordpress.com/2013/05/10/what-was-the-deal/
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on May 12, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/05-10-2013-russian-river-times-what-was-the-deal-by-sarah-rolph/
04-09-13 Phyllis Faber letter to Gov Brown regarding Ca Coastal Comm & lawsuit filed
Phyllis M Faber
765 Miller Ave
Mill Valley, CA 94941
April 9, 2013
The Honorable Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95
Dear Governor Brown,
Today ALSA (Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture) and I have filed a lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission on behalf of Drakes Bay Oyster Company for actions that do not conform to provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976 nor to its spirit. This is an extraordinarily painful step for me to take as I was co-chair of the Marin County effort to support Proposition 20 that created the California Coastal Commission in 1972 and served on the North Central Regional Commission for eight years, as chair for two years. I have been a strong supporter since the Commission was formed forty years ago. The Coast of California is clearly better off with the coastal management the Commission has provided.
I am an 85 years old, white haired biologist. Professionally, I am an editor for Natural History Books for UC Press. In Marin County, I was included in a small group on whom was bestowed the title of “Environmental Elder.” I wear it with pride. For more than 40 years – I remain an unabashed supporter of the California Coastal Act.
Today, however, in West Marin in their recent action against the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, the Commission has “lost its way.” It has engaged in an inexplicable campaign – exceeding its charter – to bureaucratically smother – to drive out of business — a working family farm, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company.
This is more than a case against an agency for failing to adhere to its CEQA rules and requirements. It’s more than usurping power from the Department of Fish and Game. It’s about the “abuse of power.”
When the Coastal Commission staff tells the Lunny family that it will not process its Coastal Development Permit (CDP) until the Park Service completes its environmental impact statement (a two-year, $ 2 million, 1,000 page document), and then accuses the Lunny’s of failing to have a CDP (delayed at CCC insistence), that’s abuse of power.
When the Coastal Commission staff presentation to the Commissioners includes a photo – dated 2013 — with the farm depicted as a physical mess with beach litter, but fails to disclose that the photo is more than seven years old taken of the beach under prior ownership and that under the Lunnys, it has been cleaned up, that’s abuse of power.
When the Coastal Commission staff found out about an administrative error by the Fish and Game Commission – twenty years ago, (a minor typographical error that was discovered by the Lunnys who asked that it be administratively corrected), they demanded actions and imposed a massive $60,000 fine while knowing that the Commission had docketed its correction – that’s abuse of power.
When the Coastal Commission becomes preoccupied with the Lunny purchase of replacement picnic tables for public enjoyment (and considers new ones development), that’s abuse of power.
When the Coastal Commission imposes a restoration order that is biologically impossible to achieve, and will clearly bankrupt a third generation ranching family, that’s abuse of power.
Above the Law – Beyond Accountability.
In enacting a Cease and Desist and a Restoration order against the Drakes Bay Oyster Company on February 7, 2013, we believe the California Coastal Commission made a mistake in judgment based on a flawed staff presentation and by ignoring their own policies, policies that support mariculture, that support agriculture, and that support visitor serving enterprises. And they ignored the Local Coastal Plan of Marin County (LCP) that strongly supports the oyster farm. This action will result in the Coastal Commission bankrupting one of the ranching families in the Point Reyes Seashore who have been on their farm for several generations and who operate the first organic beef operation in Marin County as well as the oyster farm. This is not what many of us deem to be good coastal zone management! It may also cause unknown and unconsidered harm to the productive Estero by the removal of millions of oysters, and all the clams and all the oyster racks. I firmly believe that the Cease and Desist Order and the Restoration order are in error and need to be rectified by the Coastal Commission.
The National Park Service determined that NEPA (environmental review) was required for the removal of the oyster farm. After more than 800 days, Secretary Salazar said, in effect, never mind – I don’t need NEPA to guide me and dismissed the report. The Coastal Commission didn’t even bother with CEQA either. Environmental reviews apparently are not necessary. The Coastal Commission, usually required by its own rules, simply unilaterally waived them. Excluding a public process that discloses, analyzes and explains means only one thing: the Commission’s actions cannot be reviewed. The Commission will not be accountable – to anyone. At the outset of the Commission hearing, the Commission staff instructed the Commissioners – to omit from the record the information submitted by the Lunny lawyers. This is wrong. This is not how Commission business was or should be conducted.
The recently re-adopted Commission Cease and Desist order covers three items: the emergency repair of a broken electric line for which the Lunny family had a county permit; for purchasing six picnic tables that needed replacement and six new ones to benefit the increased number of visitors every weekend (considered development by the Commission); and for the removal of an unsafe porch from a mobile home that had become a hazard (also considered development). Is this appropriate coastal management or is it perhaps a vindictive action on the part of Commission staff?
Because the oyster farm is so important as a source of high quality food (they grow about 30% of California’s oysters) and to supplying other oyster growers, the decision to remove the oyster farm is both controversial and ecologically significant for the region to consider. Oysters provide an important source of high quality food and a significant benefit to the ocean ecosystem.
The Commission’s Restoration order requires the oyster farm, if closed, to remove all the oyster racks that belong to the Park, to remove all the clams from the Estero floor, and to remove a non-native tunicate, a slimy marine organism that grows on the oyster shells and is today found all along the California coast. Removing the racks is a huge but a doable operation that will take two or three years and will include the removal of two or three million oysters that currently are filtering the waters of the Estero; removing all the clams on the Estero floor and will require raking the bottom of the Estero with unknown harm to all the flora and fauna in the Estero; and removing all the tunicates will certainly be impossible and attempting it will only spread this organism more widely.
Governor, something is terribly wrong in California when the Staff of a State Agency – the Coastal Commission – expend precious tax dollars waging a bureaucratic war against an ecologically beneficial food producer. Please give us your support.
Phyllis M Faber
765 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
415 388-6002
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on April 10, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/04-09-13-phyllis-faber-letter-to-gov-brown-regarding-ca-coastal-comm-lawsuit-filed/
04-08-13: Marin IJ VA Marine Resources Comm. begins largest oyster replenishment program
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission will begin the largest oyster replenishment program in the state’s history. The $2 million effort will plant oyster shells on state-owned beds in the James, the York, the Rappahannock and other places in the bay to create habitats conducive to the nourishment of oysters. Gov. Bob McDonnell asked for the appropriation; the General Assembly approved his request. The 2013 assembly session proved an excellent one for the bay.
Recent years have reported gratifying news regarding the bay’s oysters, which are staging a comeback. Aquaculture is thriving in the bay and along its tributaries. Smart policies by the state and by private concerns contribute to the restoration. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has been an effective advocate for the bivalves. A healthy bay produces flourishing oyster populations; flourishing oyster populations promote the bay’s health.
Editorial: And so to beds
Posted: Monday, April 8, 2013 12:00 am
In “Consider the Oyster,” M.F.K Fisher wrote: “An oyster leads a dreadful but exciting life.” May and the succeeding months will see great excitement in the Chesapeake. The results will not be dreadful.
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission will begin the largest oyster replenishment program in the state’s history. The $2 million effort will plant oyster shells on state-owned beds in the James, the York, the Rappahannock and other places in the bay to create habitats conducive to the nourishment of oysters. Gov. Bob McDonnell asked for the appropriation; the General Assembly approved his request. The 2013 assembly session proved an excellent one for the bay.
After attaching themselves to the shells, oyster larvae will grow to market size in about three years. They then will delight gourmets in stews, pan roasts and other dishes. Oysters on the half shell remain the ultimate expression of the gastronomic arts.
Recent years have reported gratifying news regarding the bay’s oysters, which are staging a comeback. Aquaculture is thriving in the bay and along its tributaries. Smart policies by the state and by private concerns contribute to the restoration. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has been an effective advocate for the bivalves. A healthy bay produces flourishing oyster populations; flourishing oyster populations promote the bay’s health.
The editor of the Editorial Pages spent Easter weekend in Boston, where he enjoyed a late lunch at B&G Oysters, which offers a dozen different oysters at every seating. The Saturday lunch list included not only varieties from New England and the Canadian Maritimes (the Ninigrets from Rhode Island took honors, as they usually do) but also Chincoteagues. The dinner selections included oysters from the James. On March 31, Jax Fish House in Denver celebrated Oyster Month with a feast featuring oysters from Rappahannock River Oysters, whose owners, Ryan and Travis Croxton, attended the festivities. The cousins entertained diners with stories about their family trade. The good word has spread.
The VMRC initiative will build on a firm foundation. The seeding of the beds will put into motion one of the wonders of our world. Infant oysters are called spats, whose lives Fisher described in delicious prose:
“It is to be hoped, sentimentally at least, that the spat – our spat – enjoys himself. Those two weeks are his one taste of vagabondage, of devil-may-care free roaming. And even they are not quite free, for during all his youth he is busy growing a strong foot and a large supply of sticky cement-like stuff. If he thought, he might wonder why.”
We will take a dozen dressed with lemon and washed down with a Virginia white. And we wish we could add a B&G lobster roll and round out the meal with the eatery’s poached pear.
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on April 8, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/04-08-13-marin-ij-va-marine-resources-comm-begins-largest-oyster-replenishment-program/
12-15-2012 Marin IJ, George Russell’s cartoon Salazar’s “Oyster Nightmare”
Dec. 15, 2012
12/15/2012 (courtesy of cartoonist George Russell),
Salazar’s Oyster Nightmare
George Russell: Oyster nightmare
Posted: 12/15/2012 09:42:22 AM PST
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on March 28, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/12-15-2012-marin-ij-george-russells-cartoon-salazars-oyster-nightmare/
03/23/2013 Federal Budget vote
Following a marathon session yesterday, the US Senate passed on a 50-49 vote, a Federal budget that
- revised the budget for 2013; and,
- established budget levels for federal spending through 2023.
More than 400 amendments were filed (formally submitted), and of that, about one in five (around 80 – don’t have exact number) were actually debated, considered and then subject to a voice or recorded vote. The Senate adjourned at 5:23 am (Eastern time).
One of those 400 amendments — Senators Vitter (R-LA) and Feinstein (D-CA) co-sponsored a bi-partisan amendment to extend the DBOC lease for 10 years (consistent with the previously enacted statutory authority in 2009). Along with more than 300 other amendments, this amendment, in the rush and crush to complete action on the budget, did not get considered.
Like Senator Feinstein, NPS false science and the Interior Department’s failed (corrupt) IG investigations compelled Senator Vitter’s initial involvement in Drakes Estero issues in 2011. Senator Vitter also represents one of the largest shellfish growing states and regions (Gulf Coast).
The Vitter-Feinstein effort signals a new bi-partisan effort to correct Secretary Salazar’s agenda-driven decision to shut down the nearly 100-year old iconic oyster farm in Drakes Estero. Both Senators, working together, will have other opportunities to correct this injustice.
Late yesterday afternoon, Cause of Action issued the following statement:
Today, Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) co-sponsored an amendment to the Senate Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, which, if passed, would allow Drakes Bay Oyster Company to remain open for 10 more years. The amendment would “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to reinstate the reservation of use and occupancy and special use permits to conduct certain commercial operations.”
Dan Epstein, Cause of Action’s executive director commented on the proposal:
“Government accountability is not a partisan issue—neither is saving jobs. This amendment would save 30 jobs at Drakes Bay Oyster Company and 40 percent of California’s oyster market. It would also send the message to the Department of Interior that transparency and scientific integrity cannot be casually dismissed for political purposes.”
Cause of Action, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel LLP, Stoel Rives LLP, and SSL Law represent Drakes Bay Oyster Company in their current federal lawsuit against the Department of the Interior, National Park Service and Secretary Ken Salazar.
SF Chronicle
The amendment, by Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, and Feinstein, D-Calif., was added to the Senate Concurrent Resolution for the 2014 federal budget. It would “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to reinstate the reservation of use and occupancy and special use permits to conduct certain commercial operations.”
Feinstein, who has accused the National Park Service of launching an unfair, scientifically flawed campaign against the oyster farm, also sponsored legislation in 2009 authorizing a lease extension, which Salazar eventually chose not to do. That decision prompted the company to sue.
“This amendment would save 30 jobs at Drakes Bay Oyster Co. and 40 percent of California’s oyster market,” said Dan Epstein, the executive director of Cause of Action, which is part of the oyster company’s legal team. “It would also send the message to the Department of Interior that transparency and scientific integrity cannot be casually dismissed for political purposes.”
Friday Mar 22, 2013 8:53 PM PT
Feinstein goes feet first into oyster farm fray
Sen. Dianne Feinstein re-entered the seemingly never-ending battle over the ouster of an oyster farm from Drakes Bay Friday by co-sponsoring an amendment to a budget resolution that would help the shellfish operation remain open.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar chose not to extend the 40-year lease, known as a reservation of use and occupancy, for the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, late last year. But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in February that the company could stay open until mid-May, when a hearing will be held to hash out “serious legal questions” about the decision.
The amendment, by Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, and Feinstein, D-Calif., was added to the Senate Concurrent Resolution for the 2014 federal budget. It would “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to reinstate the reservation of use and occupancy and special use permits to conduct certain commercial operations.”
If passed, the amendment would essentially make a statement of support for allowing the oyster operation to remain open at least 10 more years. Budget resolutions, however, do not carry the force of law and are not signed by the president.
The oyster company, which runs a cannery and harvests about a third of the state’s oysters, is the only business on the 2,500-acre estero in Point Reyes National Seashore that Congress designated in 1976 as a future marine wilderness.
Feinstein, who has accused the National Park Service of launching an unfair, scientifically flawed campaign against the oyster farm, also sponsored legislation in 2009 authorizing a lease extension, which Salazar eventually chose not to do. That decision prompted the company to sue.
“This amendment would save 30 jobs at Drakes Bay Oyster Co. and 40 percent of California’s oyster market,” said Dan Epstein, the executive director of Cause of Action, which is part of the oyster company’s legal team. “It would also send the message to the Department of Interior that transparency and scientific integrity cannot be casually dismissed for political purposes.”
Posted By: Peter Fimrite ( Email ) | Mar 22 at 8:01 pm
adam.aguirre@sbcglobal.net ;
alameda@comforcare.com ;
sealberigi@sbcglobal.net ;
taleshire@aol.com ;
susan@essanayfilms.com ;
lilyamodio@gmail.com ;
tfbalo@yahoo.com ;
ngfan24@hotmail.com ;
kbarker@allianceseatingandmobility.com ;
exceptionalhearing@sbcglobal.net ;
lbatlle@bridgehousing.com ;
suebaty@horizoncable.com ;
jrbegg@gmail.com ;
pards@centurytel.net ;
millybiller@gmail.com ;
jeremy@ptreyeslight.com ;
andreablum@mac.com ;
sixbonzis@aol.com ;
sbooker@bookeraccountancy.com ;
linda.borello@shorelineunified.org ;
stephen@westmarintech.com ;
dbrast@svn.net ;
pj@pjbremier.com ;
oakdalebrocks@yahoo.com ;
purple115@juno.com ;
aunit7@sbcglobal.net ;
bob.butler@robertbutlerco.com ;
skcalef@yahoo.com ;
scalhoun@ssd.com ;
DCCnst@aol.com ;
Jackiec1943@aol.com ;
terra_jo@hotmail.com ;
raggcm@comcast.net ;
dpcas@sbcglobal.net ;
pennytax@aol.com ;
ChandaraP@ExchangeBank.com ;
bayvista2@jsco.net ;
melissa.cichantek@gmail.com ;
clarkliz@aol.com ;
news@kwmr.org ;
jorgina.l.colyn@wellsfargo.com ;
gailconnolly@att.net ;
cathiec@northcoasttitlecompany.com ;
JACreque@aol.com ;
jbcuenin@yahoo.com ;
ginny@drakesbayoyster.com ;
mcurtis@kcmapts.com ;
meigan@greenledger.com ;
pdaffurn@vom.com ;
jdalmon@dalmonprop.com ;
jdalmon@dalmonprop.com ;
smdaniel@horizoncable.com ;
bdanz@comcast.net ;
edanz@comcast.net ;
gdanz@comcast.net ;
daynurse@gmail.com ;
DeGrazia@usc.edu ;
jennydiamond@sbcglobal.net ;
dwdilena@yahoo.com ;
ssdonlon@yahoo.com ;
signaltheatre@hotmail.com ;
susan@write-out-loud.com ;
Ken_Eichstaedt@URSCorp.com ;
evvyeisen@yahoo.com ;
pre911@comcast.net ;
selcock@co.humboldt.ca.us ;
tess@ptreyeslight.com ;
davidalane@comcast.net ;
windchimeed@islllc.com ;
pmfaber@comcast.net ;
nyssagyorgyfaul@gmail.com ;
jsfcompany@yahoo.com ;
KTAF@aol.com ;
jameshflanagan@aol.com ;
apflores1968@yahoo.com ;
bayvista1@jsco.net ;
gforshey@trapponline.com ;
tbafox@svn.net ;
garciac@exchangebank.com ;
nichole@wakefieldsharp.com ;
ndgates@pacbell.net ;
rip@ripgerber.com ;
nikit530@yahoo.com ;
june@archive.org ;
zebrastefany@aol.com
corey.goodman@me.com ;
hilaritamaintenance@gmail.com ;
maderavalley@wres.com ;
jagrant@horizoncable.com ;
GreigD@TMMC.org ;
dgrossi73@att.net ;
rgrossi@farmland.org ;
agunn@humboldtrentals.com ;
fguymer@bridgehousing.com ;
tambra@tambraharck.com ;
jimnovato@yahoo.com ;
chswmbo@aol.com ;
sanohend@horizoncable.com ;
dhiguera@bridgehousing.com ;
kdhirsch@pacbell.net ;
daren@deepvac.com ;
byrdlvr4@gmail.com ;
daren@deepvac.com ;
johnr470@aol.com ;
loichumbert@yahoo.com ;
teharatats@yahoo.com ;
marco@bullseyeusa.com ;
inveral@att.net ;
cpas@eckhoff.com ;
annette.jagers@gmail.com ;
alanjamison@comcast.net ;
barbara@simplicitytravel.com ;
janinefay@juno.com ;
wm-manager@eahhousing.org ;
coachrebecca@urfitpath.com ;
tjoseph@bridgehousing.com ;
bktomales@yahoo.com ;
jkarner@marinlaw.com ;
bkavert@apr.com ;
tjkehoe@wildblue.net ;
dkelly6980@aol.com ;
skinsey@co.marin.ca.us ;
connie@smithranchhomes.com ;
marty@martyknapp.com ;
carolkneis@bankofmarin.com ;
paul@paulknightsound.com ;
windchimemkg@islllc.com ;
koolens@camsf.com ;
nl@verizon.net ;
r.labelle@sbcglobal.net ;
jlaforce2000@yahoo.com ;
jtlav@verizon.net ;
4mlawson@earthlink.net ;
jleitzell@apr.com ;
alepisto@eahhousing.org ;
ilevytska@interweave.biz ;
lauraklew@gmail.com ;
joelilley@kw.com ;
abayview@earthlink.net ;
LynnLundstrom@horizoncable.com ;
bob@lunnypaving.com ;
brigid@lunnypaving.com ;
e30bimmfeister@yahoo.com ;
jared@lunnypaving.com ;
joanlunny@aol.com ;
joe@lunnypaving.com ;
kathleenlunny@gmail.com ;
kevin@drakesbayoyster.com ;
nancy@drakesbayoyster.com ;
norcalpb28@yahoo.com ;
eleanor@eleanorlyman.com ;
leeleelyon@gmail.com ;
imeldamacias765@gmail.com ;
kirk@defendruralamerica.com ;
bmagown@interweave.biz ;
jmfinger1@sbcglobal.net ;
LMandolini@edenhousing.org ;
dan@dancepalace.org ;
lauramarcoux@aol.com ;
jorge@westmarincompost.org ;
pmccarty@circlebank.com ;
rumseyfarm@aol.com ;
alameda@comforcare.com ;
mdmsf@pacbell.net ;
drjames@jamesmcdds.com ;
gammy07@gmail.com ;
rmcpa@hotmail.com ;
ken.miguel@abc.com ;
francoisthered@yahoo.com ;
mannmiller2008@gmail.com ;
davemi@horizoncable.com ;
LMONSERR@GMAIL.COM ;
themonserrats@sbcglobal.net ;
Juliemon@svn.net ;
gmoyer@trapponline.com ;
lrttmurphy@yahoo.com ;
Seanstd@aol.com ;
gpnabhan@email.arizona.edu ;
don@lunnypaving.com ;
anisson@sonic.net ;
jacknisson@sbcglobal.net ;
crnygren@earthlink.net ;
olearyah@yahoo.com ;
clare_oleary@sil.org ;
helenfoleary@yahoo.com ;
POL48@aol.com ;
dougolsson@sbcglobal.net ;
sfjailbird@hotmail.com ;
camorlandi@hotmail.com ;
dooture@aol.com ;
lea@deepvac.com ;
leaorlandi@aol.com ;
margafrena@sbcglobal.net ;
torlandi@pacbell.net ;
Daveoz50@yahoo.com ;
webotis@pacbell.net ;
mrkvp@hotmail.com ;
bfp1320@Gmail.com ;
pearldeb@gmail.com ;
lpetersen@westmarincitizen.com ;
petonic@yahoo.com ;
maryannpetro@gmail.com ;
phelps@horizoncable.com ;
yphillips@comcast.net ;
sistersusietta@yahoo.com ;
stefaniep3@comcast.net ;
pontacq@horizoncable.com ;
cporcaro23@aol.com ;
cprescott@thekkek.com ;
shouraiahpudota@yahoo.com ;
angelica@deepvac.com ;
angelica@deepvac.com ;
bubzine@sbcglobal.net ;
jarawson@sbcglobal.net ;
info@mowandsow.org ;
erehberg@bridgehousing.com ;
erilla@ucdavis.edu ;
leeloves2sail@hotmail.com ;
bobrocks5@earthlink.net ;
mstoffal@hotmail.com ;
sarah@sarahrolph.com ;
dougjcc@comcast.net ;
jms155@comcast.net ;
phs155@comcast.net ;
jeschaible@aol.com ;
Jennifer.Scher@synopsys.com ;
kathieschnabel@sbcglobal.net ;
jschoppert@marinlaw.com ;
psepulveda@bridgehousing.com ;
lynn@lynnserafinn.com ;
info@mowandsow.org ;
shamakim@gmail.com ;
lindy@bartley.biz ;
jslavitz@comcast.net ;
barryasmith@sbcglobal.net ;
paco_sotres@hotmail.com ;
Coastalmarin@aol.com ;
luannst@aol.com ;
mstorm@blackstonehathaway.com ;
Gabe@WRInsurance.com ;
murray@pointreyespictures.com ;
jodys@northcoasttitlecompany.com ;
ksurso@gmail.com ;
bsylvester@bridgehousing.com ;
dione.t1@gmail.com ;
1TorTaylor@gmail.com ;
judyteichman@gmail.com ;
drt321@aol.com ;
TEsposti@orexco1031.com ;
wakerobyn425@gmail.com ;
DTrapp@trapponline.com ;
bdwalk@pacbell.net ;
frank@horizoncable.com ;
hsinnish@gmail.com ;
dougtwillman@comcast.net ;
aelizabethu@gmail.com ;
aumanets@interweave.biz ;
sim@ecodesign.org ;
kvoth@livestockforlandscapes.com ;
chriswakefield@sbcglobal.net ;
dwakef@sbcglobal.net ;
kwemptynester1@gmail.com ;
northerlyfrog@gmail.com ;
thomas.walcott@colliers.com ;
barbara.walkowski@gmail.com ;
lewis@pisf.com ;
veronicaawatson@yahoo.com ;
wattenburg@aol.com ;
jweaver@circlebank.com ;
nwedekind@sbcglobal.net ;
jweidman@trapponline.com ;
aaron.weiman@gmail.com ;
agresources@erols.com ;
nancyweiman@gmail.com ;
rockandbillw@gmail.com ;
rlweldy@yahoo.com ;
johnwick@sonic.net ;
bwigert@gmail.com ;
maryanded@rollingwood.com ;
marlenewoo13@aol.com ;
jonathan_wu22@yahoo.com ;
wwyse@keeginharrison.com ;
donna@gstex.com ;
scott@drakesbayoyster.com ;
syoung3@hvc.rr.com ;
dzotkin@interweave.biz ;
mzwerling51@gmail.com ;
margaret@mankas.com ;
OLLoretto@AOL.com ;
sacredheart@horizoncable.com ;
store@bellamstorage.com ;
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on March 23, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/03/23/03232013-federal-budget-vote/
July August 2009, RRT: Environmental Petition Spreads Discredited Information | russianrivertimes
A river of environmental misinformation flows all the way from a card table in Sebastopol, across the country, down C Street in Washington, past the Department of Interior, and eventually discharges into the halls of Congress. The Russian River Times tracked it to its source.
A few days ago, at a table outside the Sebastopol Whole Foods store, a representative of a local environmental coalition was asking patrons to sign a petition. It asked Rep. Lynn Woolsey to reverse her support of Senator Feinstein’s proposed legislation to extend the lease of a historic oyster farm, located on Drake’s Estero within Point Reyes National Seashore. According to the petition handout, it was being presented by Save Drakes Bay (SDB), a coalition of environmental groups, including amongst others, the Sierra Club, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin.
The person at the table, who identified himself as ‘Brian’ showed an aerial photo of eel grass beds, pointing out that eelgrass, an important part of the ecosystem, was “nearly all gone” and that the shaded areas showed where it was “dying because of the oysters”. He claimed that the “seals were dying” as the result of the “oyster factory operation”. He claimed that if Feinstein’s amendment to the Park Service appropriations bill were approved, it would “destroy the Wilderness Act” for the commercial benefit of a local business owner.
None of these charges are true.
A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, commissioned by the National Park Service at the request of Senator Feinstein, shows that there is no scientific indication that Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) is having any meaningful negative effects on the Estero
The report states that the Park Service deliberately distorted and misrepresented claims of damage. It states that “…coverage of eelgrass has expanded from 361 acres in 1991 to about 740 acres in 2007”. Likewise, the seal population which local Park scientists had previously stated may be approaching its maximum size based on the available food resources, varies little from site to site around Point Reyes. This would not be the case if the oyster company were harming seals. The Park Services own seal database shows that the oyster company accounts for less than one percent of the total number of seals disturbed since Drake’s Bay Oyster Company took over operations in 2005. The one percent attributed to the oyster farm are based on three events, each of which as been discredited. The other 99 percent of disturbances were mostly park visitors, followed by natural or unknown causes.
John Hulls points out similar tactics spreading discredited information by Jeff Rusch of PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), the Sierra Club, the National Park Service itself. Hulls summarizes lawsuits and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings that overturned the NPS and environmental elitists goals of re-territorialization.
The Times next spoke on this issue with Gary Nabhan, who has published an article on the Estero situation in the well-respected High Country News, entitled “What we got here is a failure to collaborate”. Dr. Nabhan has served on the National Park System Advisory Board under two presidents and contributed to the study, Rethinking National Parks for the Twenty First Century. He is also granted a MacArthur Foundation “genius” award for his conservation work. His article points out the need to nurture the collaborative conservation movement and his concerned that the current nominee to head the Park Service, Jon Jarvis, may be the wrong person to foster this approach. Nabhan notes that it is a complex task to balance the inevitable conflicts that arise from the many diverse stakeholders in the National Park system. He is of the opinion that in many cases, the Park Service has failed to follow its own procedures in resolving the many inevitable conflicts that arise between diverse stakeholders within the National Parks and with surrounding communities.
In the High Country News article he states, “Jarvis knows how to preach to the wilderness choir, but national parks are about more than wild landscapes. A third of the nation’s 400-some parks, monuments, seashores and heritage areas contain culturally significant “working landscapes.” Park staff interacts with Navajo shepherds in Canyon de Chelly, Mormon orchard-keepers in Capitol Reef, bison ranchers in Great Sand Dunes and commercial fisherman around the Channel Islands. If his appointment goes through, Jarvis will be charged with the complex task of resolving the inevitable conflicts between such diverse stakeholders and protectionists.
All Park visitors rely on the correct application of laws and policy to prevent the greater public interest being drowned in a sea of misinformation and spin. Under Western Region Director Jon Jarvis, NPS management of Drake’s Estero, Fort Baker and the Merced River show a pattern of ignoring laws and science when it suits them, such as the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Wilderness Act, and the provisions of NPS policy that require cooperation with all stakeholders and surrounding communities and use of ‘best available science’ as the basis for decision making. It is the responsibility of the Department of Interior under the Obama administration to reverse the influence of narrow interest groups, be they environmental or commercial, and insure that NPS follows laws, policy and procedures fairly for the benefit of everyone who enjoys the use of our National Parks.
For the full article click on the link below:
Environmental Petition Spreads Discredited Information | russianrivertimes.
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on March 22, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/11122011-rrt-environmental-petition-spreads-discredited-information-russianrivertimes/
03/20/2013 Ca. Farm Bureau Federation President’s Message: Why the DBOC Case Matters.
For Farm Bureau, the case has implications beyond Drakes Estero.
Half of the land in California is owned by the federal or state government. Rural communities, where many Farm Bureau members live and work, depend on multiple use of these lands. National parks and wilderness areas operate under land-management rules that allow for human presence and use, even when the primary mandate is for preservation and environmental protection.
To ban an operation such as Drakes Bay Oyster Co. on the ideological belief that it should not exist in a national park or wilderness area—despite evidence that the farm provides important economic, cultural and social benefits—sets an awful precedent for everyone who believes that humans and nature can and must co-exist sustainably.
President’s message: Why the Drakes Bay Oyster case matters
Issue Date: March 20, 2013
Paul Wenger. President, CFBF
Last week, the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Marin County Farm Bureau and the Sonoma County Farm Bureau joined in a petition to a federal appeals court, urging the court to give the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. a new hearing—and a new chance to continue its sustainable aquaculture operation.
The company and its owners, Kevin and Nancy Lunny, carry on a decades-long tradition of mariculture in Drakes Estero. The oyster farming operation has been there since the 1930s—so long that few people remember the estero before the farm existed. It was there long before the Point Reyes National Seashore was established in 1960.
Despite a record as excellent stewards of the land and of the estero, the Lunnys and their farm face eviction.
The National Park Service determined that the oyster farm had to go and pulled out all the stops in its efforts to evict the farm, even though its presence adds to the overall character of the area. The Lunnys, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Farm Bureau and other advocates have pointed out a long history of shoddy, slanted pseudo-science used by the Park Service in an effort to justify removing the oyster farm.
Despite protests from the West Marin community, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar decided last November that the farm would have to leave when its lease expired. Only a last-minute stay from a federal court last month allowed the Lunnys to remain in business, while the court considers their appeal.
If you’ve been following the case like I have, you know that Drakes Bay Oyster Co. is a prime example of the local, sustainable agriculture that many Bay Area residents prize. If you haven’t been following the case, you might be surprised by the range of individuals, groups and organizations that joined together in the petition last week on behalf of the Lunnys.
Along with CFBF and the two county Farm Bureaus, the petitioners included famed Berkeley chef Alice Waters; the Hayes Street Grill, a fish restaurant in San Francisco; the Tomales Bay Oyster Co.; the Marin County agricultural commissioner; Food Democracy Now; Marin Organic; and the Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture.
These folks may all come at this issue from different angles, but we end up at the same place: What’s happening to the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. is wrong.
The petition was written by Judith Teichman, a San Francisco attorney who assembled the coalition favoring the farm’s continued operation. It notes that closing down Drakes Estero as a source of fresh, sustainably raised shellfish would wreak havoc with the world-famous local, sustainable food and agriculture of the Bay Area. It would also disrupt shellfish cultivation on Tomales Bay. It would put 31 people out of work, some of whom have worked for the oyster farm for 30 years.
Closing the oyster company would also be a serious setback for modern environmental thinking, the petition says. Leading voices in the environmental movement have called for 21st century conservationists to embrace a more people-friendly ethic that supports working landscapes—just the sort of operation that Drakes Bay Oyster Co. represents.
Old-fashioned environmental activists want to force people off the land, to return it to some sort of pre-human condition. That thinking leads to confrontation instead of collaboration, and to situations where progressive, thoughtful farmers and ranchers like the Lunnys get pushed aside because of someone’s interpretation of the purity of nature.
For Farm Bureau, the case has implications beyond Drakes Estero.
Half of the land in California is owned by the federal or state government. Rural communities, where many Farm Bureau members live and work, depend on multiple use of these lands. National parks and wilderness areas operate under land-management rules that allow for human presence and use, even when the primary mandate is for preservation and environmental protection.
To ban an operation such as Drakes Bay Oyster Co. on the ideological belief that it should not exist in a national park or wilderness area—despite evidence that the farm provides important economic, cultural and social benefits—sets an awful precedent for everyone who believes that humans and nature can and must co-exist sustainably.
That’s why Farm Bureau supports the Lunnys and Drakes Bay Oyster Co. If the bureaucrats and the kick-the-humans-out branch of environmentalism can run the Lunnys out, you can bet they’ll keep trying to throttle more wise uses of taxpayer-owned lands.
That narrow, preservationist vision never worked and doesn’t now. The appeals court will hear the oyster farm’s case in May, and we hope it will restore common sense to the management of the Point Reyes National Seashore.
Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item.
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on March 19, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/03202013-ca-farm-bureau-federation-presidents-message-why-the-dboc-case-matters/
03/07/2013 Joan Chevalier in Range Magazine On Reterritorialization
March 7, 2013
I have an opinion piece in the Spring issue of Range, along with this photo of me and my lovely little reiner, Diva.
Here’s the link to the article, “Giving Way to the Land.”
It’s a rewrite of an article that appeared in Bombay India, published by their Institute of Technology. I write about the colonial attitude of America’s large environmental organizations toward rural Americans.
“Anthropologists call this reterritorialization when a dominant culture, wanting to take over a subordinate culture, tells itself a pretty little story about its own heroism in saving the savage wrong-headed natives from themselves. The message the natives hear is: “You can either make a living on our terms or you can disappear.”
The will to make rural Americans disappear is no where so well demonstrated as in a second article in Range magazine’s Spring issue, “Shell Game on Drakes Estero” by Carolyn Dufurrena. (rangemagazine.com) Those of you who are members of the Sierra Club should resign immediately. The Sierra Club (whose name is anathema in rural America) has led a campaign of misinformation, in league with the National Park Service, against a small oyster farm in California, all in the name of “wilderness.” The NPS scientific case against the Lunny family has been discredited by the National Academy of Science not once — but twice. The Park Service used false and misleading data: a report from 1955 on oysters in Japan was taken and applied to this farm — as though those numbers came from this location! –accusing the Drake Oyster Company of destroying the eel grass with oyster feces. This is not happening: the eel grass is lush; the fish are flourishing. They accused them of harming harbor seals — to the tune of a 80 percent reduction in their numbers. The numbers indeed had dropped — not near the oyster farm, but far far away in — wait for it — WILDERNESS. Yes, in the wilderness area due to hikers and kayakers — all my lovely liberal friends chortling little seal songs to the wildlife whilst carrying copies of Aldo Leopold in their knapsacks were enough to send the seals packing. Heck they would send me packing. It had nothing to do with the oysters. But the National Park Service has spent, conservatively, about $10 million dollars trying to discredit this family, instead of doing something meaningful for the harbor seals in the wilderness area. Of course, because it is official wilderness, they probably can’t do anything meaningful.
So, this family is going to lose its operations and 30 Hispanic families will lose their employment because of a will to power: in this case the notion that purifying the landscape from all economic activity keeps it a Disney wonderland for the very very few who are wealthy or fit enough to make their way into official wilderness. And the kicker here is that this landscape would not be intact and public today, but for this family and the other rural operations who came together to protect it decades ago. The levels of betrayal here are Dickensian.
The story is well captured in this video here:
I will be writing more about this . . . count on it.
Joan Chevalier is a speechwriter in New York. Her pieces have appeared in the Boston Globe, Washington Times, and Wall Street Journal. check http://www.joanchevalier.com.
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on March 18, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/03072013-range-magazine-on-reterritorialization/
03-17-13 Marin IJ: Harmonic Convergence for Point Reyes Oysters
03-17-13 Marin IJ,
The Park Service’s own publication, “Stewardship Begins With People,” [NPSG_999_D1963_selected pages] effectively and passionately embraces — and justifies — renewing Drakes Bay Oyster Co.’s lease.
“Stewardship” presents a blueprint for “advancing innovations in collaborative conservation for the stewardship of our national system of parks and other special places” by highlighting successful examples of places, people and businesses long imbedded in national parks and nearby agricultural communities. Each is a poster example of sound, time-honored mixed use of park lands.
In a prior edition now out of print and no longer Web-accessible, “Stewardship” featured the Lunny Family Farm and its wise diversification into oysters.
Pages 4, 20, 30 and 32 are particularly poignant and speak to the Park Service’s policy of exploring creative ways to “re-establish a connection — between parks and living cultures; between public lands and the stewardship of farms and forests; between people and the food they eat; and between park visitors, communities and a more sustainable future.”
|
|
|||
ANOTHER harmonic convergence is underway in Marin. This time its vibe is real and palpable and manifests directly out of the mouths from the voices of societal leaders. This time no humming or blissful chanting on Mount Tamalpais is required, only mindful connection of dots. President Obama’s economic recovery plan focuses on revitalizing small businesses of middle class working folks; his agencies actively extoll establishing and restoring oyster beds to help sustain ecosystems. A federal appellate court cites “serious legal questions” about Interior Department’s refusal to renew Drakes Bay Oyster Co.’s permit, saying “the balance of hardships tips sharply” in favor of the farm, then grants an emergency reprieve. The Independent Journal runs a front-page article about the $445 million contribution of National Parks to Marin’s economy by visitors lodging, hiking, seeing elephant seals — and eating oysters. Another features the launch of the “Grown Local Marin County” branding campaign that promoting foodsheds, as Supervisor and MALT board member Steve Kinsey puts it, of West Marin’s organic sustainable farms, ranches and aquacultures. The Park Service’s own publication, “Stewardship Begins With People,” effectively and passionately embraces — and justifies — renewing Drakes Bay Oyster Co.’s lease. Check it out online. “Stewardship” presents a blueprint for “advancing innovations in collaborative conservation for the stewardship of our national system of parks and other special places” by highlighting successful examples of places, people and businesses long imbedded in national parks and nearby agricultural communities. Each is a poster example of sound, time-honored mixed use of park lands. In a prior edition now out of print and no longer Web-accessible, “Stewardship” featured the Lunny Family Farm and its wise diversification into oysters. Pages 4, 20, 30 and 32 are particularly poignant and speak to the Park Service’s policy of exploring creative ways to “re-establish a connection — between parks and living cultures; between public lands and the stewardship of farms and forests; between people and the food they eat; and between park visitors, communities and a more sustainable future.” The Park Service’s “Stewardship” promotes small, historic, local, family-owned, organic, sustainable, educational, community enriching, job creating, diverse food producers and eloquently reaffirms a sense of place, local cultures, regional identify, distinctiveness and character, and the need to address the unraveling of social and economic relationships to the land. And as it so advocates, the Park Service speaks directly to the validity and value of continued mixed use of Drakes Estero by our national treasure, Drakes Bay Oyster Co. The Park Service itself — convergently and harmonically — got it exactly right. The oyster farm’s lease should be renewed. Bob La Belle of San Anselmo is a conservationist and a lifelong resident of Marin |
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on March 18, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/03-17-13-marin-ij-harmonic-convergence-for-point-reyes-oysters/
03/14/13 E&E News PM: Farm Groups, Businesses, Back DBOC
03/14/13 E&ENews PM
Farm groups, businesses back Calif. oyster farm’s bid to stay at national seashore
5. INTERIOR:
Jessica Estepa, E&E reporter
Published: Thursday, March 14, 2013
A coalition of local businesses and agriculture interests yesterday came out in support of a California oyster farm slated for closure in Point Reyes National Seashore.
In the first of what is likely to be many legal briefs on both sides to be filed ahead of a May hearing with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the coalition said it supports the Drakes Bay Oyster Co.’s case for an injunction that would allow it to remain open while a lawsuit against the Interior Department is settled.
“Closing the Oyster Farm would have a broad, negative and immediate impact, on the local economy and the sustainable agriculture and food industry in the San Francisco Bay Area, on the school children of the workers who live in the housing units onsite, and, in the longer term, on food security and the U.S. balance of trade,” the group said in its brief.
At issue is a dispute over the oyster farm in an area that has been designated as potential federal wilderness. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last year decided not to renew the farm’s lease, which expired last year. Farm owner Kevin Lunny has sued Interior, saying Salazar did not adequately follow the National Environmental Policy Act before making his decision.
The 9th Circuit will hear the injunction case in May and granted an emergency stay for the farm to remain open until then (E&E Daily, Feb. 26).
Those that filed the brief: Hayes Street Grill, Tomales Bay Oyster Co., the California Farm Bureau Federation, the Marin County Farm Bureau, the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, Food Democracy Now, Marin Organic, the Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture, chef Alice Waters and Marin County Agricultural Commissioner Stacy Carlsen.
In the brief, the groups argue that the oysters produced by Drakes Bay provide a local, sustainable food source. Additionally, they criticize the National Park Service for its role in the Drakes Bay case and say public comments on the draft environmental impact were not taken into consideration.
“This Court can best serve the public interest in this case by issuing the preliminary injunction requested and returning the case to the District Court along with instructions in which misstatement of both pertinent facts and applicable law are corrected,” the brief says.
Environmentalists dismissed the brief, saying it “offered nothing new” in the case. They noted that Drakes Bay had recently received a cease-and-desist order from a state agency.
“It is a shame that these groups and individuals represent Drakes Bay Oyster Co.’s egregious record of violations with the California Coastal Act as ‘sustainable’ agricultural practices,” said Amy Trainer, executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin.
She added, “Is this really the type of practice they want more of on our coastal and public lands?”
The Premier Information Source for Professionals Who Track Environmental and Energy Policy.
© 1996-2013 E&E Publishing, LLC Privacy Policy Site Map
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on March 16, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/031413-ee-news-pm-farm-groups-businesses-back-dboc/
03/14/13 Nat’l Pks Traveler: Renowned Chef, Farm Bureau Support DBOC
3/14/13 National Parks Traveler
Alice Waters, a chef renowned for her insistence on the freshest organically grown and locally produced ingredients, has signed on to a “friend of the court” brief in support of an oyster company trying to hold on to its operations at Point Reyes National Seashore on California.
The brief (attached below) filed Thursday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also was supported by the Hayes Street Grill in San Francisco, the Tomales Bay Oyster Company, Stacey Carlsen, Agricultural Commissioner, County of Marin, the Marin County Farm Bureau, the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, the California Farm Bureau Federation, Food Democracy Now, the Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture, and Marin Organic.
Renowned Chef, Farm Bureau Support Oyster Company’s Bid To Remain At Point Reyes National Seashore
Submitted by http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/users/npt-staff
View user profile.” href=”http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/users/npt-staff”>NPT Staff on March 14, 2013 – 12:57pm
Alice Waters, a chef renowned for her insistence on the freshest organically grown and locally produced ingredients, has signed on to a “friend of the court” brief in support of an oyster company trying to hold on to its operations at Point Reyes National Seashore on California.
The brief (attached below) filed Thursday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also was supported by the Hayes Street Grill in San Francisco, the Tomales Bay Oyster Company, Stacey Carlsen, Agricultural Commissioner, County of Marin, the Marin County Farm Bureau, the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, the California Farm Bureau Federation, Food Democracy Now, the Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture, and Marin Organic.
The appellate court late last month granted Drakes Bay Oyster Co. an injunction to block the National Park Service from ending its lease at the national seashore until a hearing in May on the matter. The company’s lease expired at the end of November, and Congress had directed the Park Service to officially declare Drakes Estero a wilderness area once all non-conforming uses were removed.
In seeking the temporary restraining order, Drakes Bay’s lawyers argued that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar broke the Administrative Procedures Act and violated the National Environmental Policy Act when he decided last November not to extend the lease for 10 years. In denying the lease extension, the Interior secretary cited the value of wilderness and congressional intent. On the very next day, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis declared the estero part of the Philip Burton Wilderness at the Seashore, effective December 4.
The amicus brief said Ms. Waters, the owner of Chez Panisse restaurant in Berkeley, California, has over the course of nearly 40 years “helped create a community of scores of local farmers and ranchers, such as the Lunnys (owners of DBOC), whose dedication to sustainable aquaculture and agriculture assures the restaurant a steady supply of fresh and pure ingredients.”
The 37-page filing also argued that “closing the oyster farm would have a broad, negative and immediate impact, on the local economy and the sustainable agriculture and food industry in the San Francisco Bay Area, on the school children of the workers who live in the housing units onsite, and, in the longer term, on food security and the U.S. balance of trade. Closing down the oyster farm in Drakes Estero, which has existed since the early 1930s, would be inconsistent with the best thinking of the modern environmental movement and further tear at the fabric of an historic rural community that the Point Reyes National Seashore [Seashore] was created to help preserve.”
The brief, along with voicing the signatories’ support for the oyster company, also argued that there’s an ongoing evolution in how society views nature.
“Chief Scientist for The Nature Conservancy, Peter Kareiva, is a leading advocate for the need for 21st century conservationists to become more ‘people friendly’ and to deal with ‘working landscapes,’ including fisheries,” the brief notes.
The filing also cites an article in Slate that quoted Emma Marris, described as a leader of the “modernist environmental movement,” as saying, “we must temper our romantic notion of untrammeled wilderness’ and embrace the jumbled bits and pieces of nature that are all around us – in our backyards, in city parks, and farms.”
Amicus-Drakes Bay Oyster v Salazar-FINAL
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on March 16, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/031413-natl-pks-traveler-renowned-chef-farm-bureau-support-dboc/
3/14/13 Press Democrat: Chef Alice Waters, Sonoma Farm Bureau, & others Back DBOC
Famed Berkeley chef Alice Waters and the Sonoma County Farm Bureau filed a federal court brief Thursday supporting Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s battle to stay in business in Point Reyes National Seashore.
Their 29-page “friend of the court” brief opposed the National Park Service’s order to shut the oyster farm on Drakes Estero, asserting the move is “inconsistent with the best thinking of the modern environmental movement.”
Chef Alice Waters, Sonoma County Farm Bureau back Drakes Bay Oyster Co.
By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Thursday, March 14, 2013 at 3:00 a.m.
Famed Berkeley chef Alice Waters and the Sonoma County Farm Bureau filed a federal court brief Thursday supporting Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s battle to stay in business in Point Reyes National Seashore.
Their 29-page “friend of the court” brief opposed the National Park Service’s order to shut the oyster farm on Drakes Estero, asserting the move is “inconsistent with the best thinking of the modern environmental movement.”
The park service and “other traditional conservationists” seeking the closure are “stuck in an archaic and discredited preservationist paradigm,” the brief said.
Eight other parties, including Hayes Street Grill in San Francisco, Marin County Agriculture Commissioner Stacy Carlsen, the California Farm Bureau Federation and Marin County Farm Bureau, joined in the brief.
The shutdown order came last fall in the wake of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision not to renew a permit for the oyster company, which harvests 8 million oysters a year from the estero’s federally protected waters.
Farm operator Kevin Lunny, with free legal services from a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, is fighting the order, alleging that Salazar’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.”
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the oyster farm’s case the week of May 13.
Waters, a pioneer of the organic food movement, developed a community of local ranchers, “such as the Lunnys, whose dedication to sustainable aquaculture and agriculture assures the restaurant a steady supply of fresh and pure ingredients,” the brief said.
Lex McCorvey, Sonoma County Farm Bureau executive director, could not be reached for immediate comment Thursday.
Posted on the bureau’s website is an undated letter from its president, grape grower Tito Sasaki, urging President Barack Obama to rescind Salazar’s decision.
“This nation, blessed with the natural, economic and human resources, must lead the world by showing how to integrate environmental, agricultural, social and economic objectives – just as Drakes Bay Oyster Company has been doing, albeit on a very modest scale,” the letter said.
You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or guy.kovner@pressdemocrat.com.
Copyright © 2013 PressDemocrat.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only.
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on March 16, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/31413-press-democrat-chef-alice-waters-sonoma-farm-bureau-others-back-dboc/
03/15/13 DBOC Attracts Support from Restauranteurs (Chez Panisse’s Alice Waters)
“Interior is making its best effort to flat out kill this oyster farm and its jobs by using misleading science and ignoring economic impacts,” Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the lead sponsors — 22 other Republicans have signed onto the bill — wrote in a statement to the Independent Journal. “My bill would implement a good first step to letting the Drakes Bay workers continue working.”
|
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on March 16, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/031513-dboc-attracts-support-from-restauranteurs-chez-panisses-alice-waters/
02-21-13 75-page report details misconduct – performance & execution of investigations under Mary Kendall.
02-21-13 “House Natural Resources Committee… released a scathing 75-page report detailing misconduct in the performance and execution of IG investigations under the four-year tenure of “Acting” IG – Mary Kendall….
What is so striking – the categories of issues identified in this House Committee Report (having nothing to do with NPS at Point Reyes) are almost identical to the suite of issues involving NPS science at Drakes Estero – unfinished IG reports, gross errors, glaring omissions, significant misrepresentations, altered data, missing emails – and the list goes on. “
This is the story of TWO REPORTS – one from House Natural Resources Committee (just released) AND the second, a new Inspector General’s Report, prepared by the OIG under DOI IG Mary Kendall, on NPS science at Point Reyes/Drakes Estero (released in early February).
In a letter to President Obama this past week, House Natural Resources Committee Chair, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), told the President to appoint a permanent Inspector General at the Interior Department and released a scathing 75-page report detailing misconduct in the performance and execution of IG investigations under the four-year tenure of “Acting” IG – Mary Kendall.
A few weeks ago, on February 7, 2013 (five months late), OIG Kendall released the results of what was supposed to be a misconduct investigation on NPS Science at Drakes Estero (on false sound data in the NPS DEIS for the DBOC permit extension). There’s no nice way to say it: The IG’s report is a white-wash, from start-to-finish. I won’t go into the details here, but in the coming next few days, the OIG misconduct will be exposed. A story this past week in the Point Reyes Light only scratched the surface.
The House Committee report is posted on the Committee’s web site and can be accessed from the following link: http://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/oversightreportdepartmentofinterior.pdf
What is so striking – the categories of issues identified in this House Committee Report (having nothing to do with NPS at Point Reyes) are almost identical to the suite of issues involving NPS science at Drakes Estero – unfinished IG reports, gross errors, glaring omissions, significant misrepresentations, altered data, missing emails – and the list goes on.
From the IG’s Report – Selected Examples of Getting it Wrong:
* NPS regulations are crystal clear, the NPS was required – MANDATORILY – to measure the sound from Kevin’s oyster boats, the oyster tumbler and other noise-generating machines. MEASURE IT. NPS didn’t bother. NPS can’t say they didn’t know — the mandatory regulation was in place for more than a decade — since 2001. Instead, the IG investigators interviewed several NPS officials and NPS contractors, and then quoted them, in their overdue report, explaining (words to the effect), “oh, we don’t do it that way…we use proxy data all the time.” Armed with an “that’s-the-way-we-do-it” explanation, the IG then effectively concluded, if they do it all the time, it must be okay. So much for law and policy. So much for mandatory regulations. NPS didn’t bother. The IG didn’t care.
* The Goodman Misconduct Complaint, submitted last April, set forth six major allegations against the NPS. Kendall and her OIG team didn’t bother to address three of them. The IG turned their back on half the Goodman complaint. Another way to look at it – the IG simply “airbrushed” away major elements of the Complaint.
* IG Investigators, Vince Haecker and Trey DeLaPena, told Kevin, when they originally interviewed him, that he would be given an opportunity to “ground truth/fact check” NPS responses. Kevin never heard from the investigators again. Lunny requests, several months later, for follow-up meetings went unanswered – ignored.
A week ago, within days of the latest IG report giving NPS a clean bill-of-ethical-health, Justice Department lawyers raced to Federal Court, and, citing the IG’s report, told Judges at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Lunny complaints about NPS science were wrong and the oyster farm was causing real environmental impacts. This is after the Secretary said he wasn’t finalizing the EIS, failed to submit it (as required) to EPA, failed to publish it in the Federal Register, failed to allow a 30-day comment period, failed to produce a Record of Decision (ROD) as set forth, in writing to Kevin and Nancy Lunny in September 2010, and then said, the day he announced he was shutting down the farm – the EIS didn’t matter.
If the sound from Kevin’s oyster tumbler was as loud as NPS said it was, as the OIG confirmed as valid and the Department of Justice told the Federal Courts, then the conversation between Kevin and Nancy Lunny and Interior Secretary Salazar (depicted in the photo below could not have taken place) – and would have been drowned out by the noise. But it wasn’t.
From the Russian River Times – “On his visit to the oyster farm, Salazar and Kevin and Nancy Lunny hold a perfectly normal conversation in front of the oyster tumbler. Nancy is holding a sound meter, which was used to measure the levels to compare with the values in the Draft EIS and Final EIS, which were based on ‘imported’ data rather than the actual measurement required by NPS policy. At the NPS reported sound levels, which would have been clearly audible over a mile away, this conversation would have been impossible. ”
Instead of investigating NPS and their serial misconduct Kendall and the OIG decided to “partner” with NPS. With the most recent IG’s report, Inspector General Kendall’s integrity was undeniably compromised. From the just-published House Committee Report, and the examples set forth in it, we now learn that the Interior Department’s ethical problems were not limited to NPS and what continues to unfold at Drakes Estero.
The Committee press release is pasted into this email, below. Articles from Greenwire, “Hastings Faults Acting IG for ‘Accommodating’ Admin, Urges Obama to Appoint Permanent Watchdog,” and THE Hill “Senior House Republican Calls on Obama to Replace ‘Accommodating’ Interior Watchdog.” are also pasted below.
Press Release
|
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on February 26, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/02-21-13-75-page-report-details-misconduct-performance-execution-of-investigations-under-mary-kendall/
02-25-13 PRAYERS ANSWERED – INJUNCTION GRANTED – HUNGER STRIKE ENDED!!!
I JUST RECEIVED WORD
THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS
GRANTED DRAKES BAY OYSTER COMPANY
THE INJUNCTION!!!
THEY CAN REMAIN IN BUSINESS
UNTIL THE LAWSUIT IS SETTLED!!!
MAYBE THAT SHOULD READ LAWSUITS!
NOW, NOT ONLY WILL THE NPS BE SUED
BUT ALSO, I BELIEVE, THERE ARE OTHERS
TO BE SUED!!!
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on February 25, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/02-25-13-prayers-answered-injunction-granted-hunger-strike-ended/
02-14-13 Pt Reyes Light: Coastal Commission Trumped Up Claims Against DBOC
Coastal Commission Trumped Up Claims Against Drakes Bay
Point Reyes Light, February 14, 2013
By Sarah Rolph
Last week, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) approved an enforcement against Drakes Bay Oyster Farm (DBOC), a combined Cease and Desist Order and Restoration Order. The press release from the local activist group Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (EAC), which works closely with the CCC, makes the situation sound serious. The EAC says “DBOC violated multiple provisions of the 2007 Consent Order,” and cites issues such as “ongoing unpermitted development” and “violations of harbor seal protection requirements.”
In fact, these purported violations could hardly be more un-serious. The “unpermitted development” refers to things like digging a necessary trench for electrical work, installing a fence in the parking area, and adding a few new picnic tables. The so-called “violations of harbor seal protection requirements” can be traced to a misunderstanding about where the oyster boats are allowed to go. CCC maintains a definition of the “lateral channel” that DBOC doesn’t recognize. The oyster boats have not been traveling in new places—the CCC is apparently unfamiliar with the lay of the land here.
The EAC and the CCC report that the Restoration Order addresses “impacts to eelgrass from motorboat propeller cuts, impacts to water quality from wooden racks treated with chromated copper arsenate, the spread of the aggressive and highly invasive Didemnum vexillum, the spread of other invasive species including Manila clams, and the general nature of ongoing mariculture operations.”
Here, too, the claims are grossly exaggerated.
As has been reported many times over the course of this controversy, the eelgrass in Drakes Estero is quite healthy. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) noted in its 2009 review that “the total percentage of eelgrass area lost (1%) or partially degraded by propeller scars (7%) and thus attributable to oyster mariculture represents about 8% of all eelgrass habitat in Drakes Estero as of 2007. Eelgrass has approximately doubled in areal cover in Drakes Estero from 1991 to 2007, implying little systemic threat from the existing intensity of oyster culturing activities. Oysters have the potential to benefit eelgrass because their filtering activity improves local water clarity (and hence light penetration) and because they release biodeposits and ammonium (plant nutrients).”
The so-called impacts to water quality from treated wooden racks would be news to everyone who monitors the water quality in Drakes Estero. It’s not mentioned in the water quality section of the Park Service Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The tunicate Didemnum vexillum is harmless. Its presence was covered by the 2009 NAS report, which described it as a “pest.”
There is no evidence that clams are spreading. Perhaps the EAC has mixed up its accusations; clams feature in another exaggerated complaint stemming from a clerical error at the Fish & Wildlife department that resulted in the misplacement of some clams until the error was discovered. (The clams are now back where they are supposed to be.)
As to why EAC or CCC have an issue with “ongoing mariculture operations,” that’s a question that may never be answered. Suffice to say the groups share a strong dislike of the oyster farm.
The one fact that seems to be technically true is that the Lunnys do not have the required Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Yet the Lunnys say they have completed that application, that no additional info has been requested of them, and that CCC staff recommended in 2010 that the finalization of the CDP be postponed until the DBOC EIS was completed by the Park Service.
The CCC’s Cease and Desist and Restoration Order is nothing more than a collection of trumped-up charges that have been carefully crafted to shore up the Park Service narrative.
For years, NPS has made false claims of DBOC harm to the environment. The 2009 NAS review found that the Park Service had “selectively presented, overinterpreted, or misrepresented the available scientific information on DBOC operations by exaggerating the negative and overlooking potentially beneficial effects” – damning language coming from scientists, who are famously conservative about such matters. The Department of Interior Inspector General reported in March 2011 that it found the Park Service staff at Point Reyes guilty of “misconduct [that] arose from incomplete and biased evaluation and from blurring the line between exploration and advocacy through research,” and that “responses from NPS employees reveal a collective but troubling mindset.”
That didn’t stop NPS from including the same false claims, and more, in their EIS—but that document was found to be so lacking in substance by the National Academy’s 2012 review that it has now been effectively discarded. Thus the need for something to reinforce the false narrative.
Marin County supervisor and CCC vice-chair Steve Kinsey voted for the Order because he found it technically correct, given that the CDP isn’t official. But even so, he calls the situation “morally disturbing,” saying the CCC “repeated the same disproven assertions that the operation was harming harbor seals and eelgrass” NPS has made. Says Kinsey, “CCC staff chose to portray the Lunnys as irresponsible operators to aid and abet the Park Service’s myopic interest in terminating the lease. Given the unequivocal support of aquaculture written into the Coastal Act and the specific support in Marin’s Local Coastal Program, I am deeply disappointed in the staff’s attitude and complicity with the NPS.”
The desire to remove DBOC flies in the face of every county, state, and federal policy about oyster aquaculture. Oyster farming is known to help the environment, as noted above by the NAS; this is of course why oyster restoration projects are under way all over the world. The Marin County planning documents call for support of aquaculture, the PRNS General Management Plan supports it, and even the CCC charter, the Coastal Act says “aquaculture is a coastal-dependent use which should be encouraged to augment food supplies.”
Something is very wrong here.
Sarah Rolph is a freelance writer working on a book about the Lunnys. Her website is http://www.sarahrolph.com.
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on February 14, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/02-14-13-pt-reyes-light-coastal-commission-trumped-up-claims-against-dboc/
02-14-13 No. Bay Biz: DBOC Royal Shucking by NPS
02-14-13 North Bay Biz Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s Royal Shucking by NPS
…the Park Service was a party to reports that doctored the science, shaded the truth or spun the data regarding how the oyster business negatively affected the park. The reports were designed to influence public opinion and to paint the oyster operation as being bad for the environment or poor stewards of the Estero. While it was eventually acknowledged that the reports were flawed, the damage was done.
The White House is about small business…mostly. The Obama administration has spent plenty of time talking about small business and its role in restoring the economy. But in this case there were 30 people pink slipped when Salazar put the hammer to Drakes Bay.
Bill Meagher
Columnist: Bill Meagher
February, 2013 Issue
On a cold November Thursday, Ken Salazar made a boatload of enemies with a single phone call.
The secretary of the U.S. Interior Department chose that day to announce his decision that the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, the family-run seafood business that became a fixture in Drakes Estero at Point Reyes National Seashore, had 90 days to depart the premises.
He’d visited West Marin the week before, taken a tour of the facility and sat with owner Kevin Lunny. It was the right thing for Salazar to do, though only he knows if his mind was already made up to tell Lunny his business had run its course. Salazar had company—there are many people in the North Bay who believe he did the right thing by dispatching the oyster operation.
There are also plenty of folks who feel Lunny and company got the wood put to them without the benefit of so much as a kiss. It’s a debate that was playing out in Marin in a loud manner as folks were hanging Christmas lights and I was putting this column to bed. I won’t try to cover every angle now as I have but 1,000 words and I’ll do a longer story later. For now, there are a few lessons that can be drawn from this tale.
For those who’ve been hiding out in the witness protection program, this is the down and dirty version. The Lunny family bought the company in 2005 from Johnson Oyster Company, and inherited a “reservation of use,” which essentially let it farm oysters until November 2012, when a 40-year lease expired. The National Park Service, as well as National Parks Conservation Association, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and a host of local environmental organizations made it clear that the business should vacate and the Estero revert back to its natural state as “wilderness” and “untrammeled by man.”
It wasn’t like nobody was in favor of Drakes Bay Oyster getting a longer lease, however. Politically powerful Senator Diane Feinstein has been outspoken in her support of the business, and local restaurants and seafood lovers of every stripe have sided with Lunny. The Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture and Marin Organic backed the operation as well.
But, in the end, Salazar sent Lunny packing.
Lesson One: The end justifies the means. The National Park Service made no secret it preferred that the oyster company get out. It was cordial in dealing with the company and, most of the time, it was professional as well. But on at least two occasions, the Park Service was a party to reports that doctored the science, shaded the truth or spun the data regarding how the oyster business negatively affected the park. The reports were designed to influence public opinion and to paint the oyster operation as being bad for the environment or poor stewards of the Estero. While it was eventually acknowledged that the reports were flawed, the damage was done. A level playing field is nice, but W.C. Fields once advised that giving a sucker an even break was not the profitable path to follow.
Lesson Two: Political backing ain’t what it used to be. Back in the days when I spent a fair amount of time covering politics, having a sitting U.S. senator on your side was a pretty good thing. It didn’t guarantee you’d win every fight, but that was certainly the way to bet if you were the kind who enjoyed a sporting wager. In this particular contest, DiFi lined up on one side and Senator Barbara Boxer managed to play it both ways. In 2009, she and Feinstein supported the lengthening of the lease between Drakes Bay and the National Park Service. But when Salazar pulled the trigger, Boxer said she supported him saying he made the decision “based on the law and the science.” Political lightweight Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey wound up backing the NPS as well. That and $3 will get you a nice cup of coffee at Toby’s Feed Barn in Point Reyes.
Lesson Three: Organic and sustainable is nice, but not a game changer. Marin has long championed foods that were free from the taint of chemicals as well as local goods. The first farmers market in the country was birthed here, and the concept of having a menu rich with locally grown veggies as well as meat, poultry and fish has become gospel to those who worship at Our Lady of the Blessed Foodie. Drakes Bay was a pretty fair example of an operation that fit with those principles. But, in the end, the scoreboard didn’t read its way.
Lesson Four: Pack a good lawyer. Salazar knew no matter what way he came down, somebody was going to be suing Uncle Sammy, and he’d rather that somebody be Lunny than a group of environmental organizations that are experienced enough to have legal counsel well-versed in suing the feds. And to be sure, Lunny is bringing a suit. Ironically, a nonprofit representing the oyster farm, Cause of Action, has ties to the Koch Brothers. The Brothers Koch bankrolled lots of conservative causes and advocacy groups including the Tea Party.
Lesson Five: The White House is about small business…mostly. The Obama administration has spent plenty of time talking about small business and its role in restoring the economy. But in this case there were 30 people pink slipped when Salazar put the hammer to Drakes Bay. At the same time, however, he took the opportunity to assure all the ranches and dairies that operate in Point Reyes National Seashore that the Interior Department planned to extend the leases of their businesses 10 to 20 years.
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on February 14, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/02-14-13-no-bay-biz-dboc-royal-shucking-by-nps/
02-12-13 National Grange (nation’s oldest agri org) Response(s) to NPS decision to oust DBOC
02-12-13 National Grange blog: A response(s) to NPS decision to remove DBOC
“Dig deeper and you will see that it is… MUCH MORE about ignoring the intent of the original law, ignoring good science, exploiting tax dollars,
and having federal. government ignoring and overriding … your state rights;
in short, decisions weren’t made on common-sense facts and figures and the removal of the farm will greatly hurt the community….
… this isn’t like fighting a big box company that would put the small shops out of business….
the oyster farm is one of the keystone farms out in the Pt. Reyes area and allows for many of the local businesses and restaurants to thrive because of the farm’s existence.
- If you believe in sustainable farming,
- if you support low-carbon footprint farming to help mitigate climate change,
- if you understand the important role of oysters in an eco-system
- if you further understand the important position that each player has to keep a small community healthy and happy ,-
- then you understand that saving this farm is not simply ‘about a business’.
If instead ‘environmentalist emotion’ tugs harder at you heartstrings
[If] your ‘trust in the government runs stronger than the truth…then unfortunately you are looking at the situation with an unbalanced and unclear viewpoint.”
Kvoth February 11, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Something needs to be done to prevent the farm from being removed!
- Anne O' Leary, Arlington, VA February 11, 2013 at 4:17 PM
Thanks to the National Grange for recognizing the plight of Drake’s Bay Oyster Company and the threat to California ranchers posed by this flagrant abuse of NPS authority. I hope Grange members and supporters will rally to this worthwhile cause!
- Nancy K. Cadigan February 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM
I am a Granger & I support the National Park Service plans to create a marine wilderness at Drakes Estero. I feel this is an issue about a business sueing the government because their lease extension was denied.
The federal government has never before extended the lease of a ” nonconforming” commercial operation, such as an oyster farm, on public land designated by Congress to become wilderness. Yeah for wilderness
- Frank Gyorgy February 12, 2013 at 6:46 AM
The closing of DBOC is a shocking example of a corrupt Federal Agency. NPS spent 6 million plus tax dollars creating false science showing environmental harm by the oyster operation. Salazar approved those methods and then stated the science didn’t matter.
- Yannick Phillips February 12, 2013 at 8:07 AM
I’m a California Granger and I am in full support of the oyster farm. I’m responding to Nancy’s statement:
“I feel this is an issue about a business suing the government because their lease extension was denied.”
On the face of it, I could see how you might think that, Nancy. Dig deeper and you will see that it is not about that at all and MUCH MORE about ignoring the intent of the original law, ignoring good science, exploiting tax dollars, and having fed. gov’t ignoring and overriding our/your state rights; in short, decisions weren’t made on common-sense facts and figures and the removal of the farm will greatly hurt the community. That is why much of the Pt. Reyes community greatly SUPPORTS the sustainable oyster farm staying put. Nancy, this isn’t like fighting a big box company that would put the small shops out of business….the oyster farm is one of the keystone farms out in the Pt. Reyes area and allows for many of the local businesses and restaurants to thrive because of the farm’s existence. If you believe in sustainable farming, if you support low carbon footprint farming to help mitigate climate change, if you understand the important role of oysters in an eco-system and if you further understand the important position that each player has to keep a small community healthy and happy ,-then you understand that saving this farm is not simply ‘about a business’. If instead ‘environmentalist emotion’ tugs harder at you heartstrings and your ‘trust in the gov’t’ runs stronger than the truth…then unfortunately you are looking at the situation with a unbalanced and unclear viewpoint.
To read the full article from the National Grange blog, click on the link below or copy and paste it into your web browser:
http://nationalgrangeviewfromthehill.blogspot.com/
************************************************************************
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on February 12, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/02-12-13-national-grange-nations-oldest-agri-org-responses-to-nps-decision-to-oust-dboc/
02-09-13 Western Livestock Journal – Idaho ranchers & BLM or DBOC and DOI / NPS?
Does this sound familiar? – Even the dates are curiously similar!
…grazing cutbacks announced on Jan. 28 by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) left ranchers in southwestern Idaho’s Owyhee County reeling, and county officials worrying about the region’s economic future…. Over four allotments reviewed for renewal, cuts … ranged from 35 to 47 percent, four times the levels anticipated by the ranchers. …. residents worry that this may be the beginning of an alarming trend…. “Either [the ranchers] go out of business, or they come down out of the hills and start competing for farm land to run their cattle [which]….leads to bidding wars and unnecessary disputes over the 22 percent of Owyhee County acreage not under federal ownership. The effects… will be felt not only by the ranchers, but by the whole region, including surrounding counties.
“Ranching is important, not only for our economy, but for many other aspects of what is going on,” …. “If we remove the ranchers, for example, it will make it very hard for the county to spend money on things like roads.”
“In May of 2008, [BLM] [was] given until December of 2013 to get these 68 allotments done,” he says. “They didn’t start on it until last summer.”
In addition, says Aberasturi, while the county was supposed to coordinate with BLM during this process, they were not informed of the cuts until notices were mailed to the permit holders. “We should have been part of the process from the very beginning,” he says.
…Aberasturi contends that BLM failed to account for improvements made by permit holding ranchers when making their analysis, something that should have been factored in.
“If they didn’t do that, what else didn;t they do?” he asks. “If all they are going to do is the part of the process that makes the environmental groups happy, they are catering to special interests. They are not looking at multiple uses for the land, as they are supposed to be.”
Each rancher has 15 days following a notice to appeal the decision….
“They’re forcing these ranchers to fight for their livelihoods against their own government.”
Idaho grazing cuts deeper than anticipated
A series of grazing cutbacks announced on Jan. 28 by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) left ranchers in southwestern Idaho’s Owyhee County reeling, and county officials worrying about the region’s economic future. Over four allotments reviewed for renewal, cuts to number of head and the number of days allowed for grazing ranged from 35 to 47 percent, four times the levels anticipated by the ranchers. With 62 more allotments in the county scheduled for renewal review this year, residents worry that this may be the beginning of an alarming trend.
“We were expecting 8 or 10 percent, maybe 12 on some of the harder used allotments,” says Owyhee County Commissioner Kelly Aberasturi, “but they came back with much more.”
Such stringent cuts, says Aberasturi, are going to have a measurable effect on the county’s largely agriculturally-based economy. “People are going to go out of business,” he says. “Either they go out of business, or they come down out of the hills and start competing for farm land to run their cattle.”
Such a situation, Aberasturi says, leads to bidding wars and unnecessary disputes over the 22 percent of Owyhee County acreage not under federal ownership. The effects, he says, will be felt not only by the ranchers, but by the whole region, including surrounding counties. “Ranching is important, not only for our economy, but for many other aspects of what is going on,” he says. “If we remove the ranchers, for example, it will make it very hard for the county to spend money on things like roads.”
The reviews are the result of a court order by District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill of Boise following a lawsuit filed by Western Watersheds Project (WWP), a Hailey, ID-based anti-grazing group. In their suit, WWP alleged that BLM was violating the law in the region by not providing adequate habitat for sage grouse, a species listed by BLM as “sensitive.” Under this classification, the species, while not covered by the Endangered Species Act, does warrant special consideration. Winmill ultimately agreed with WWP’s position, and ordered BLM to review 68 allotments within Owyhee County. In particular, he stipulated that measurable habitat improvements must occur every year.
That stipulation, according to BLM Boise District Manager Jim Fincher, is a large part of what made drastic cuts a necessity. “We have to show measurable and observable improvements in each year,” he says. “That’s why the cuts are as aggressive as they are. If we don’t do that, we could be in contempt of the judge’s ruling.”
Fincher points out that failing to meet the judge’s demands could result in a complete removal of grazing across the region. The decisions to cut, he says, were based on a variety of factors. “What was brought to the judge by the litigants is that we weren’t meeting the Idaho standards for rangeland health,” he says. “That’s the focus of our analysis.”
While sage grouse habitat played a role in the process, Fincher indicates that it was not the sole driving force behind the decision to cut grazing. Other considerations he listed included changes in upland vegetation, prevention of invasive weeds, and the need to improve stream banks and wildlife habitat.
“Because of the timeframes we’re under, we had to take a very limited view on the types of prescriptions that we could use to address those situations. Looking at our data, that’s where we came up with the rationale for what cuts needed to be made on each allotment. Doing the right thing for long term ecosystem health, the cuts are necessary.”
Lack of time, however, comes as a thin excuse to Owyhee County officials. While Fincher has held his position for just a few months, Aberasturi points out that BLM knew as early as 2008, as a result of previous litigation, that review of the Owyhee allotments was necessary.
“In May of 2008, they were given until December of 2013 to get these 68 allotments done,” he says. “They didn’t start on it until last summer.” In addition, says Aberasturi, while the county was supposed to coordinate with BLM during this process, they were not informed of the cuts until notices were mailed to the permit holders. “We should have been part of the process from the very beginning,” he says.
Also of concern, Aberasturi contends that BLM failed to account for improvements made by permit holding ranchers when making their analysis, something that should have been factored in.
“If they didn’t do that, what else didn;t they do?” he asks. “If all they are going to do is the part of the process that makes the environmental groups happy, they are catering to special interests. They are not looking at multiple uses for the land, as they are supposed to be.”
According to Fincher, each allotment is being addressed individually, and it is impossible for BLM to predict if reviews of the remaining allotments will follow a similar trend with regard to grazing cuts. Each rancher has 15 days following a notice to appeal the decision, a step that Aberasturi says is already underway on the allotments already reviewed.
The primary concern for now is to seek a stay on the decision, rolling grazing back to 2008 levels in order to let ranchers turn cattle out as scheduled for this year while they contest the decision. Even if a stay is granted, points out Aberasturi, the larger dispute over the necessity of the cuts may mean a return to the courtroom, and the looming prospect of a lengthy and costly battle.
“They’re forcing these ranchers to fight for their livelihoods against their own government.” — Jason Campbell, WLJ Correspondent
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on February 11, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/02-09-13-western-livestock-journal-idaho-ranchers-blm-or-dboc-and-doi-nps/
02-06-13 Oldest Agricultural Organization, National Grange supports DBOC in letter to Obama
Dear Lunny family and friends,
The National Grange has sent a letter to Pres. Obama in support of the farm.
For those not aware of the National Grange, it is the oldest agricultural organization in the United States.
(their national building is across from the White House).
Warmly,
Yannick A. Phillips
Sonoma Valley Grange
Here is the letter: (click the link below to see the letter on National Grange Letterhead or read the letter below it)
NG Drake’s Oyster Bay letter to WH-1
Dear President Obama:
On behalf of the National Grange and the nearly 160,000 members we represent, I write to you today to ask
for your support and help in keeping a small but vital family farm alive by reversing the November 28,
2012 decision of former Interior Secretary Salazar not to renew the Drake’s Bay Oyster Farm’s special-use
permit. The farm has been owned by the Lunny family in the Pt. Reyes area of California for almost 100
years. This little farm produces almost 50% of all oysters in California. This farm and other such oyster
farms have environmental benefits for the ecosystem and that is why the federal government presently
spends millions of taxpayer dollars to help restore oysters and shellfish in numerous areas in the United
States as filter feeders of our waters.
At the National Grange, we pride ourselves in supporting farmers and their quest to feed our citizens
nationwide. A farm is not simply another business on Main Street; it is a business that keeps people
nourished and has vital importance to every American. We understand that law and policy cannot always
satisfy all parties that are directly or indirectly involved, but in this case, the law and policy that formed the
basis of the agency’s discretion seem to have trumped over common sense for the core community of Pt.
Reyes. In essence, former Secretary Salazar decided to put a small, sustainable family farm out of business
in order to allow the farm’s property to revert to “wilderness,” even though other adjacent farmers and
ranchers are allowed to continue operating in that same area.
In addition, law and policy seem to have trumped the overseen ramifications that will occur throughout
California- a state greatly strapped for money- beyond the outskirts of the small community of Pt. Reyes.
Though far from California, we in D.C. can envision the considerable negative consequences that will
unfold should Secretary Salazar’s decision stand. As just one example, the agricultural runoff into the
Drakes Estero from the remaining agricultural operations that were spared from Secretary Salazar’s
decision will not be filtered once the oysters are forcibly removed by the National Park Service. In
addition, California will now have to import a greater number of oysters from foreign nations such as
China. We ask that you urgently consider overturning former Secretary Salazar’s misguided decision and
help bring back a more peaceful and integrated decision that highlights sustainable, environmentally
friendly and low carbon footprint agriculture rather than tossing it aside. The wilderness area of Pt. Reyes
and the Lunny’s sustainable, small family farm can certainly co-exist, as they have done for nearly 100
years. Thank you for your consideration.
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on February 10, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/02-06-13-oldest-agricultural-organization-national-grange-supports-dboc-in-letter-to-obama/
02-09-13 Defend Rural America Founder states, “Arguments to destroy DBOC are fraudulent!”
02-09-13
“Having evaluated the so-called “scientific” arguments made in favor of destroying the Klamath River Dams and Drakes Bay Oyster Farm, I and other DRA members conclude these arguments are fraudulent. There is already substantial, credible, and documented scientific analysis provided by Dr. John Menke, Dr. Paul Houser, Dr. Corey Goodman, and others that exposes the information is being intentionally falsified to justify a pre-determined outcome irrespective of the truth or the people.
Continued use of the discredited “science” to justify the destruction of these dams would, in my opinion, be actionable. Individuals could and should be held liable for actual and punitive damages. Fraud defeats any claimed shield of immunity.”
Defend Rural America is a voluntary coalition of Americans that are committed to the truth, the Constitution, and a republican form of government. It has 2,000 members in California and Oregon, and a national reach of over 45,000. We are strongly committed to the preservation of the Klamath River dams.
The KBRA/KHSA seeks to displace the representative governments of 9 counties with a group of unelected, unaccountable, and non-transparent so-called “stakeholders” that would govern the most important resources of these 9 counties, namely, the Klamath River and all that it provides. Many if not most of these “stakeholders” would suffer no consequences of their decisions, as they don’t live or earn their living in these communities.
It is documented nearly 80% of Siskiyou County voters voted to keep the dams, knowing full well their destruction would also destroy the river, the salmon, the current ecosystem, and the county’s economy, communities, and families. There is also no doubt destruction of the dams would violate numerous federal environmental laws, result in damages, and constitute a “take” the size of which would eclipse anything the people have done.
Having evaluated the so-called “scientific” arguments made in favor of destroying the Klamath River Dams and Drakes Bay Oyster Farm, I and other DRA members conclude these arguments are fraudulent. There is already substantial, credible, and documented scientific analysis provided by Dr. John Menke, Dr. Paul Houser, Dr. Corey Goodman, and others that exposes the information is being intentionally falsified to justify a pre-determined outcome irrespective of the truth or the people.
Continued use of the discredited “science” to justify the destruction of these dams would, in my opinion, be actionable. Individuals could and should be held liable for actual and punitive damages. Fraud defeats any claimed shield of immunity.
I encourage the Klamath County Commissioners to carefully weigh the decisions they make.
Regards,
Kirk MacKenzie, Founder
Defend Rural America
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on February 10, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/02-09-13-defend-rural-america-founder-states-arguments-to-destroy-dboc-are-fraudulent/
01-23-13 Dispelling the Myths about the DBOC Conflict with the NPS
Posted by Communications Staff in Blog on January 23, 2013 12:30 pm / no comments
The decision last November by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar not to renew The Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s lease was based on a number of inaccurate and misleading claims. Here are five myths that the Secretary, his supporters, and the National Park Service use to justify the oyster farm’s eviction from Drakes Estero:
Myth #1:
The Secretary’s decision was based on sound science.
National Park Service researchers claimed that oyster farming operations in Drakes Estero damaged eelgrass beds and upset seal breeding patterns. Yet other NPS reports contradicted these claims, and the National Academy of Sciences stated that the Park Service had “exaggerated the negative and overlooked the potentially beneficial aspects of the oyster culture operation.” Marine biologist Corey Goodman, who independently studied the farm’s impact on the region’s ecology, called the Park Service research “a stunning misuse of science by our federal government.” Secretary Salazar ultimately decided that the Park Service’s inaccurate Environmental Impact Study was “not material” to his final decision, ignoring federal law that requires such a study be taken into account.
Myth #2:
Renewing the lease would set a precedent.
Some people were concerned that allowing the oyster company to remain in Drakes Estero would create a model of privatization that other leaseholders in national parks could follow. However, the 2009 law granting Salazar the right to extend the lease another ten years expressly states that the provision would not be viewed as precedent. In fact, Salazar’s removal of the oyster company is likely to set a standard in the opposite direction, with more working farms and orchards expelled from national park lands.
Myth #3:
Removing the oyster farm would improve the region’s environmental health.
When owner Kevin Lunny first bought The Drakes Bay Oyster Company in 2004, he took out a $300,000 loan to clean and restore the farm. Because his family’s livelihood depended on the productivity of Drakes Estero, he was careful to keep the waters clean and productive by clearing the bay of debris and trash left by hikers and kayakers. The oysters themselves actually improved the bay’s water quality byfiltering out algae that inhibits eelgrass growth.
Myth #4:
The disagreement is between environmentalists and the agriculture industry.
As a committed environmentalist, Kevin Lunny turned The Drakes Bay Oyster Company into a model of sustainable agriculture. “It’s extremely healthy for the environment,” Mr. Lunny said. “There are no feeds, no fertilizers, no chemicals.” Biologist Corey Goodman called Mr. Lunny “one of the pioneers for organic and sustainable agriculture that also protects the environment.” Advocates for the consumption of locally-produced food to reduce its environmental footprint have long supported the oyster farm, which sells nearly all its product to tourists and local restaurants. With Drakes Bay accounting for 40 percent of the state’s oyster production, California restaurants will have to fly oysters in from the Pacific Northwest or East Coast, increasing greenhouse gases and other harmful emissions.
Myth #5:
The Drakes Bay fight is only about politics: It’s Democrats versus Republicans
Some contend that the fight over Drakes Bay is politically split along ideological fault lines. This too is untrue. First, there has been an outpouring of support from a community where most bi-partisan races were easily won in 75/25 percent split (Democrats/Republicans). Further, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein has been a staunch defender of Drakes Bay Oyster Company, as well as a fierce critic of the National Park Service and Department of the Interior. In addition to crafting legislation, Feinstein has been outspoken in her support, even writing a letter to Secretary Salazar last March that called on him to renew the lease. With demonstrated partisan support, this issue isn’t split along party lines.
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on January 24, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/01-23-13-dispelling-the-myths-about-the-dboc-conflict-with-the-nps/
12-18-12 In Defense of Drakes Bay Oyster Company
I can … understand why this was a no-brainer for national environmental organizations. In calling for the closure of the oyster farm, they were advocating for an important principle: Whenever possible, potential wildernesses should receive full wilderness protection, and commercial enterprises removed.
In this case, however, the principle is misaligned with the place. For all of the reasons alluded to … — ecological, cultural, educational, recreational — it doesn’t make sense to consider Drakes Estero a wilderness area.
I worry about what this disconnect between the ideal and the specific reveals of the environmental movement. The twentieth century activists who saved Point Reyes knew well that conservationism, in its best sense, is all about a love of place. Affection for place is how the ur-pastoralist Wendell Berry explains it. At the risk of being too cynical, I don’t see much love of place in the behavior of national environmental groups involved in this fight. Not when an overwhelming percentage of Marin residents — many, if not most of them, committed environmentalists — support the oyster farm. Not when I happen to know that the conservation director of a Big Green group advocating for the oyster farm’s closure has never stepped foot in Point Reyes National Seashore.• Not when I consider the wall of silence (see here and here and here) that greeted the Interior Department’s move — just two days before Salazar’s Drakes Estero decision — to open 20 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas leasing. The whole affair strikes me as an easy way for national environmental organizations to win some points with a largely symbolic victory and also, on the flip side, a relatively easy way for the Obama Administration to throw environmentalists a bone.
Latest News
In Defense of Drakes Bay Oyster Company
BY JASON MARK – DECEMBER 18, 2012Follow Jason Mark on Twitter
Field Notes from Point Reyes National Seashore
The latest environmental controversy has to do with a small, little animal whose anus passes through the middle of its heart.
For those of you who aren’t molluscologists, I am referring to the oyster (Crassostrea virginica orCrassotrea gigas). And for those who don’t happen to live in the rarified precincts of Marin County, California, I am talking about the long running battle over Drakes Bay Oyster Company, a family-run outfit located at the center of one of our most unique national parks, Point Reyes National Seashore.
Here’s the latest headlines: On November 29, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that he would not renew Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s operating permit, and gave the oyster farm 90 days to close its doors. Salazar’s decision was the culmination of a seven-year-long debate (or, if you prefer, a 40-year-long one) over whether the oyster farm is compatible with Drake Estero’s designation as a wilderness area.
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Stanford professor Richard White described the contretemps this way: “On one side are liberal Democrats … who promote local and organic foods. … On the other side are liberal Democrats who advocate on behalf of wilderness and public access to parks. But only one side [the wilderness advocates] have the law on their side.”
If only the matter were so simple.
Beyond the impassioned back-and-forth over what exactly the science says about the estuary where the oyster farm is located, beyond the parsing over the original intent of the Point Reyes Wilderness Act of 1976, there lie much bigger questions. For starters, how do we define “wilderness”? And, more to the point, how do we measure the value of a pastoral landscape against the value of a wild one?
National environmental groups have been unanimous in demanding that Drakes Estero should become a fully protected wilderness, and the oyster farm removed. “The National Park Service rightly concluded in its study that the oyster factory is damaging the national park; full wilderness protection is the best way to preserve this fragile area,” the Sierra Club said in a statement following the Salazar announcement. In its statement, NRDC said: “With today’s announcement, Point Reyes’ DrakesBay becomes the very first marine wilderness along the Pacific, and it will take its rightful place as one of the nation’s most precious and protected wild places along with designated wilderness areas at Joshua Tree, Yosemite, Zion and other national parks. Its preservation will enrich the lives of people today and for generations to come.”
As a passionate backpacker and hiker, I’m instinctively sympathetic to this viewpoint. Wilderness is all too rare (and becoming rarer) and we need more places that aren’t stamped with humanity’s insignia.
But Drake’s Estero is not that place. Having followed this controversy for years — and having spent several spells living in Point Reyes Station, the hamlet at the edge of the park — I strongly believe the oyster farm should stay.
It seems to me the debate over the ecological impact of Drakes Bay Oyster Company is all backwards. The issue isn’t whether shellfish farming is compatible with the ideal of wilderness. Rather, it’s whether a wilderness is compatible with the pastoral landscape that surrounds Drake’s Estero.
Some background: In 1962 President Kennedy signed a law establishing a national seashore on the largely undeveloped, triangle-shaped peninsula about 30 miles north of the Golden GateBridge. The designation was a landmark achievement for conservationists. The suburbs of San Francisco had begun encroaching on what historically had been a bucolic area of ranches, farms and dairies. Logging was underway on Inverness Ridge, and real estate interests were starting to carve subdivisions into the bluff overlooking LimantourBeach, a miles-long expanse of white sand surrounded by tall, white cliffs. Environmentalists, led by the Sierra Club’s David Brower(also the founder of this publication), launched a campaign to stop the bulldozers. They won. Congress passed a bill “to save and preserve, for purposes of public recreation, benefit, and inspiration, a portion of the diminishing seashore of the United States that remains undeveloped.”
The new protected area was unlike any other national park before — or since. Point Reyes ranchers and dairymen had been opposed to the park, so Congress crafted a compromise to allow them to stay. The federal government would buy out the farmers and then lease the land back to them so they could continue their agricultural traditions. Point Reyes National Seashore would strike a balance between recreation, wilderness preservation, and pastoral land use.
This arrangement continues today. More than two million people visit the park every year. What they find there is an eclectic landscape of fog-shrouded and moss-hung forests, pristine beaches, wind-swept dunes, tidal estuaries … and miles of open rangeland grazed by cows and some chickens. While the park’s northern and southern sections at Tomales Point and Inverness Ridge are designated as wilderness, the interior of park (about one third of the park’s 71,000 acres) is what’s called the “pastoral zone.” It is a working landscape of (mostly organic) dairies and ranches that supply milk, butter, and meat to Northern Californians.
When the park was created in 1962, the large, hand-shaped estuary at the heart of peninsula was left in a kind of limbo. Drake’s Estero (named for the English pirate Sir Francis Drake, who beached his booty-laden ship, the Golden Hinde, there in the summer of 1579 for repairs) is a shallow lagoon of about 2,200 acres. The tidal marshes and secluded beaches of the estero are popular with some of the 470 species of birds spotted in Point Reyes. Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) use the lagoon’s mudflats to haul-out, sunbathe and, in the springtime, rear their pups. The estuary is also an ideal location for mariculture. In 1935 an oyster farm was established on the northeast shore of the central finger of the estuary. It was soon one of the largest shellfish producers in the state.
In 1972 the federal government bought out Johnson’s Oyster Farm, the outfit then running the operation, and gave Johnson a conditional use permit to keep farming there until 2012. In 2005 a third generation Point Reyes rancher named Kevin Lunny, whose family still operates the Historic G Ranch to the northwest of the estuary, bought the oyster farm from Johnson. Lunny cleaned up the place, rebranded it as Drakes Bay Oyster Company, and announced his intention to seek a lease extension from the National Park Service and continue operating past 2012.
That’s when the controversy exploded. Some area environmentalists (emphasis on some) were outraged at the prospect of not seeing the estuary receive the full wilderness protection they believed the law demanded. They were quickly joined by national environmental organizations that were eager to secure the first marine wilderness area on the West Coast. (For the record, Earth Island Institute chose not to take sides in the controversy.) The ranchers and dairies closed ranks in support of Lunny family, fearing that if the Park Service kicked out the oyster farm they would be next. Locals split into warring factions. People began trading polemics and potshots in the Point Reyes Light and the West Marin Citizen. In a place where late model Priuses and mud-splattered F-250 pickups seem to split the road evenly, the debate became a litmus test of loyalty. A Point Reyes Station merchant, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the issue is so emotional, told me: “It’s the most divisive issue I’ve seen in the 16 years that we’ve been here.”
• • •
In his excellent new book, An Island in Time, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Point Reyes National Seashore, Northern California author John Hart offers this encapsulation of the controversy, “Two matters … seem essential: the exact intent of Congress in the Point Reyes Wilderness Act of 1976, and the extent to which the presence of the oyster farm is known to be changing the environment of Drakes Estero.”
Here’s what Amy Trainer, the executive director of theEnvironmental Action Committee of West Marin, the loudest and most impassioned critics of the oyster farm, has to say about mariculture’s impact on the estuary: “There are tens of thousands of birds, both resident and migrating, that stop over in the estero. The [oyster company’s] motorboats flush them. The science is very clear on that. They get disturbed when they are resting and foraging. Both the Marine Mammal Commission studies and peer-reviewed science have showed that, from time to time, mariculture operations do disturb harbor seals. You know, this is one of the main breeding sites on the California coast for harbor seal pupping.”
Actually, the science on the matter isn’t as clear as Trainer makes it sound. It would take a whole book to document the scientific back-and-forth on the issue (including the accusations of misrepresented findings and shoddy research), but suffice to say that the best available evidence regarding the oyster farm’s impact on wildlife is inconclusive.
A National Academies of Science report from 2009 said the data on oyster farm-related harbor seal disturbance was so thin that it “cannot be used to infer cause and effect,” and called for “a more detailed assessment.” A professor from UC-Davis who reviewed the Park Service’s draft environmental impact study on the oyster farm removal observed that “impacts of oyster aquaculture on birds are speculative and unsupported by peer-reviewed publications.” And what about theMarine Mammal Commission report Trainer refers to? It concluded that the data supporting the claim that oyster farming disturbs the harbor seals “are scant and have been stretched to their limit” and that “analyses are not sufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship.” As the commission pointed out, the Park Service’s own fact-finding suggests that the worst culprit for harbor seal disturbance might not be the oyster farm, but rather recreational kayakers.
I asked Kevin Lunny, the owner of Drakes Bay Oyster Company, about his thoughts on the question of seal disturbance. “There is no evidence that says there is major adverse effects,” Lunny told me, after rattling off the reports cited above. “There isn’t enough data. They can’t make that claim, and we can’t make the opposite claim.” He later added,
“They [the harbor seals] habituate. They get used to boats going in and out of there. They don’t even lift their head. They could care less if we are out there. They are used to us, they are used to activity.”
Then, in what I’m sure is a practiced line, Lunny said: “They’re called harbor seals.”
In his seven-page memo ordering the closure of the oyster farm, Secretary Salazar acknowledged that “there is scientific uncertainty and a lack of consensus in the record regarding the precise nature and scope of impacts that [Drake’s Bay Oyster Company’s] operations have on wilderness resources.” His decision was based, Salazar said, on the 1976 law designating parts of the national seashore as wilderness. According to Salazar, “Congress clearly expressed its view that, but for the nonconforming uses, the estero possessed wilderness characteristics and was worthy of wilderness designation.”
Here, too, the record isn’t all that clear. The authors of the Point Reyes Wilderness Act created a whole new term to describe Drakes Estero — potential wilderness. The estuary received the conditional designation precisely because of the presence of the oyster farm. The question then becomes: Did the law’s authors intend for the oyster farm to eventually disappear?
Salazar obviously thinks so. But some of the people who were involved in crafting the legislation have a different take. In a letter sent to Salazar in the fall of 2011, former US Representatives Pete McCloskey and John Burton, along with former California Assemblyman William T. Bagley, wrote: “The seashore is somewhat unique in the National Park System in that from the beginning, it was intended to have a considerable part of its area, consisting of the historic scenic ranches being leased back to their owners, and to retain an oyster farm and California’s only oyster cannery in the Drakes Estero [sic]. The estero sits in the middle of those 20,000 acres of ranches designated as a pastoral zone; the oyster plant and cannery on the shores of Drakes Estero are in that pastoral zone.”
The question of Congress’s original intent will get a full hearing soon. Earlier this month Lunny filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior charging the agency with failing to do a full review as required under NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) and the Administrative Procedure Act. Lunny is also seeking a temporary restraining order allowing the oyster farm to continue operating while the case is in court.
The way West Marin environmental activist Amy Trainer sees it: “This is about law and policy. Congress was very clear that this estuary — this is the only chance on the entire West Coast, and it’s the only one so far in the continental United States, where we have a chance to have a marine wilderness experience.”
But will a Drakes Estero absent the oyster farm really be a “marine wilderness experience”? I hope that in deciding the case Judge Elizabeth Laporte will consider that question, because I don’t think it’s as obvious as Trainer or Salazar or the national environmental organizations make it seem.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 has a clear definition of the wild. In what is one of the most eloquent passages in US legislation, the act says: “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
As most visitors to the estuary will tell you, Drakes Estero — even without the oyster farm — is not a place that meets that standard.
• • •
Ten days after Salazar announced the closure of the oyster farm I took a trip to Point Reyes National Seashore to remind myself of what is at stake in this fight. By way of disclosure, I should say that Point Reyes is one of my favorite places in the world. I have hiked its trails countless times: trekking the wind-blown bluffs of Tomales Point where the Tule elk live, bird-watching at Abbots Lagoon, slogging through the soggy trails of the aptly named Muddy Hollow. I can tell you that there is nothing like leaving San Francisco at 5 PM, driving across the Golden GateBridge, and after a shoreline hike pitching tent at Coast Camp as the sun goes down. A good part of my heart is attached to the landscape there.
It was an ideal Northern California December day for hiking. The hills were Ireland-green after a spate of heavy rainstorms. The sky was clear and bright blue and the air chilly. The sign at the Drakes Estero trailhead reminded my companion and I that we were about to enter a “cultural landscape” — a place that humans have been using for centuries.
After a short walk through a grove of pines (the remnants of a former Christmas tree farm), we made our way down to the bridge that crosses the labyrinth-like mudflats. The tide was ebbing and the channel there was low, so we didn’t spot any rays or sharks, but on the far side of HomeBay we could see a large number of white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos). From the bridge the trails climbs the bluffs above the estero, drops down to a small fresh water pond, climbs again, and again drops down to another fresh water reservoir held in place by a simple earthen dike. At one of the inlets we spotted a large group of dunlins (Calidris alpina) scuttling about in the shallows; a trio of great egrets (Ardea alba) stood about as a single great blue heron (Ardea herodias) stalked its lunch. Although it was out of sight, past the far west edge of the estero, we could hear the roar of the Pacific Ocean at the GreatBeach, like a never-ending freight train rumbling in the distance.
In most places the trail was a muddy mess. The situation had been made worse by the herds of cattle that also make their home on the estero. Their footprints were obvious, and it was clear how much erosion they cause with their constant traffic. We encountered a large herd of Angus and Hereford cattle (Bos taurus) grazing near a lone eucalyptus tree. After passing through their midst, I turned and counted them: at least 82 head in that one spot alone. (Later, on the ridges above Limantour estero, we would pass through a herd at least a third as large.)
We kept hiking southward through the grasslands and the coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) showing off its downy winter blooms, and eventually found a nice picnic spot on a hill. To the north, the estero. To the south, the western tip of Limantour spit. At the mouth of the estuary, the very critter at the center of the controversy: a herd of at least 50 harbor seals, sunning themselves on a mudflat. During the hour we spent snacking, not one of them moved from their spot. The seals did not seem the least discomfited by the oyster platform about 200 yards away from their haul-out. They appeared way less uneasy than the five or six mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) I spotted watching us bipeds with studied disinterest.
This, in short, is what makes Point Reyes exceptional: The ability to see scores of birds, dozens of cattle, a herd of seals and the occasional prancing deer — all within just a few miles and all in a mixed landscape of natural wonders and human artifacts. The juxtaposition of the natural and the pastoral is, for this hiker at least, why the place feels wondrous. Yes, I know that the stock tank right before the junction with the Drakes Head trail is artificial. But I like the way that the water’s reflection makes the scene there seem bigger, even as the barn at the Historic D Ranch, seen from that point, makes the space feel smaller and somehow more homey. Sure, the dikes that help form the ponds around the estero’s edge are fake — and they help create the perfect habitat for the grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis) we caught sight of. It was a thrill to walk no more than 12 feet from a cow as she nursed her offspring, and to experience the young calves test their courage by staying on the trail until we were barely an arm’s length away. And it was equally a thrill when we spotted the tracks and scat of a coyote (Canis latrans) on the little-traveled White Gate trail as the alder groves settled into dusk.
Point Reyes National Seashore has always been an experiment in co-existence. My recent hike there offers evidence that the experiment mostly has been successful. Until, that is, the oyster farm controversy shattered the peace.
It’s important to note that the cattle that graze the banks of the estero aren’t going anywhere. Secretary Salazar, in his memo shutting down the oyster farm, ordered the Department of Interior to pursue extending the leases of the area’s ranches and dairies and went out of his way to recognize the importance of the park’s pastoral character. “These working ranches are a vibrant and compatible part of Point Reyes National Seashore, and both now and in the future present an important contribution to Point Reyes’ superlative natural and cultural resources,” Salazar wrote. Even Amy Trainer, considered uncompromising by some people in Point Reyes, concedes that the cattle are there to stay. “This is a compatible use, to have sort of this working landscape.”
I have a hard time understanding how the cattle grazing fits within the ideal — or the legal definition — of wilderness. As long as there are ranchers riding horseback or riding ATVs to manage their herds, the estero won’t be one of those places where “man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Barbed wire fences and gates aren’t something I associate with the wild.
In any case, I don’t believe the estero should be considered wilderness, no matter what Congress has said. The wilderness experience is valuable for the sense of awe that solitude in a magnificent setting can provide — something close to spiritual awakening or religious revelation. The pastoral experience is far different, but no less valuable. The working landscape of fields and farms illustrates how dependent we are on natural systems even as we shape them to our own ends. Whereas the wilderness is special because it’s untouched, the pastoral is important because it’s interactive.
When I asked Kevin Lunny about the difference between the wild and the pastoral, he explained it simply. “People are fascinated with where their food comes from,” he told me. “We have 50,000 visitors a year. The oyster farm is one of the most popular attractions in the park. We are interpreting the landscape around us. We explain how oysters grow, to everyone from little kids to marine biology classes.” He later said: “And driving through the pastoral zone is cool, too. I grew up with it, seeing seashore visitors loving it — driving into our ranch when we’re working cows. And they are coming from the City, and they go, ‘What are you doing?’ And we say, ‘Come on, watch for a while.’ And they are completely fascinated.”
If we need the wilderness because it is inspirational, we need the pastoral because it is instructive. The intimacy of the pastoral experience offers a lesson in how we are involved in a web of relationships to plants, to other animals, to the rhythm of the weather and the tides. A working landscape — perhaps even more than a wild one — situates us, showing us our place on this planet.
• • •
During our conversation I asked the Environmental Action Committee’s Amy Trainer to tell me why she sees a difference between terrestrial agriculture and mariculture. Why are the ranches OK, but not the oyster farm? Especially given that oyster farming likely requires less human intervention in the ecosystem than the cattle ranching. (“With the oyster farm, you don’t feed, you don’t fertilize. There’s no cultivation at all,” Lunny said.) Also considering the fact that the oysters, as bottom feeders, are helping to keep the estero clean by filtering the cow shit.
Trainer had difficulty explaining why the oyster farm, in and of itself, is so bad. Instead, she kept coming back to the ideal of the rule of law: Back in 1976, Congress said this should be a wilderness, so it was time to make it wilderness. “This has never been about the Drakes Bay Oyster Company,” she said. “It has always been about upholding the very clear law and policy. … This has never, ever happened — that once Congress has declared a potential wilderness area, and there’s a lease expiration, that commercial rights would be extended. That’s never happened. And whether it’s oil or oysters, it’s the same precedent that could be applicable. That if you have friends in high places, you can get special treatment.”
I get the point Trainer is trying to make (even if her statement is misleading*). There are rules, and the rules need to be followed. Overt Congressional meddling in established environmental policy — like the 2009 appropriations rider sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein that gave decision-making power over the estero to the Secretary of the Interior — is usually a bad idea. As just one example, see the 2011 removal of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List.
I can also understand why this was a no-brainer for national environmental organizations. In calling for the closure of the oyster farm, they were advocating for an important principle: Whenever possible, potential wildernesses should receive full wilderness protection, and commercial enterprises removed.
In this case, however, the principle is misaligned with the place. For all of the reasons alluded to above — ecological, cultural, educational, recreational — it doesn’t make sense to consider Drakes Estero a wilderness area.
I worry about what this disconnect between the ideal and the specific reveals of the environmental movement. The twentieth century activists who saved Point Reyes knew well that conservationism, in its best sense, is all about a love of place. Affection for place is how the ur-pastoralist Wendell Berry explains it. At the risk of being too cynical, I don’t see much love of place in the behavior of national environmental groups involved in this fight. Not when an overwhelming percentage of Marin residents — many, if not most of them, committed environmentalists — support the oyster farm. Not when I happen to know that the conservation director of a Big Green group advocating for the oyster farm’s closure has never stepped foot in Point Reyes National Seashore.• Not when I consider the wall of silence (see here and here and here) that greeted the Interior Department’s move — just two days before Salazar’s Drakes Estero decision — to open 20 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas leasing. The whole affair strikes me as an easy way for national environmental organizations to win some points with a largely symbolic victory and also, on the flip side, a relatively easy way for the Obama Administration to throw environmentalists a bone.
My cynicism is probably just an expression of my frustration. But I simply can’t see many upsides to this decision (if it’s upheld in court, as I’m sorry to say I expect it will be). Californians will lose an important sustainable food producer. At least two dozen people in West Marin will lose their jobs. Visitors to the national park will lose an opportunity to learn a little something new about marine ecology. For the birds and the harbor seals the closing of the oyster farm will likely be a wash. The only winners are likely to be kayakers — and I would guess that some of them will come to miss the chance to paddle around the shellfish platforms.
In its statement released after Salazar’s closure announcement, the NRDC said the “preservation” (air quotes intended) of Drakes Estero “will enrich the lives of people.” Maybe. But for those of us who live here in Northern California, and who really know and love Point Reyes, I can only see how it makes us poorer.
This article has been corrected from the original version, which stated that Earth Island Institute was formally in support of closing the oyster farm. In fact, the institute decided not to take a position on the issue.
* In An Island In Time John Hart points out that there are 29 other “potential wilderness” areas in national parks. Most of them are “potential” because they aren’t federally owned or are encumbered by other property rights. Utility corridors with power lines account for most of the rest. Oil wells in potential wildernesses seem a remote possibility.
Jason Mark, Editor, Earth Island Journal
Jason Mark is a writer-farmer with a deep background in environmental politics. In addition to his work in the Earth Island Journal, his writings have appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, The Nation, The Progressive,Utne Reader, Orion, Gastronomica, Grist.org, Alternet.org, E magazine, andYes! He is a co-author of Building the Green Economy: Success Stories from the Grassroots and also co-author with Kevin Danaher of Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power. When not writing and editing, he co-manages Alemany Farm, San Francisco’s largest food production site.
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on January 24, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/12-18-12-in-defense-of-drakes-bay-oyster-company/
01-23-13 Peter Gleick on Sustainable Agriculture, Wilderness & DBOC: The Role of Science in Policy
Sustainable Agriculture, Wilderness and DrakesBay Oysters: The Role of Science in Policy
Posted: 01/23/2013 6:47 pm, by Peter Gleick
In the past couple of years, a debate in Northern California over wilderness protection, sustainable agriculture, and the integrity of science has spiraled into the dirt. The fight is over whether to continue to permit a small privately managed oyster farm, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, to continue to operate inside what is now the Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County, California. The oyster operation predates the Park, having been in Drakes Estero for nearly a century, but the Estero is now eligible for wilderness status. Supporters of wilderness believe the oyster farm is an incompatible use and should be closed. Supporters of local sustainable agriculture believe the farm should remain because of its history, benign environmental impacts, and role in the local economy. In late 2012, after an extensive debate marked by disturbing scientific misconduct and abuse, local acrimony among long-time friends, and controversy among federal and state agencies, Interior Secretary Salazar ruled that the farm should be closed, giving the owners a mere 90 days to remove their operations, fire their employees, and abandon the farm.
Parts of Drakes Estero have long been recognized as potential wilderness. At the same time, the oyster farm has long been recognized as a key player in the historic local sustainable agriculture of the region, along with several ranches that remain open and operating. The farm provides as much as 40 percent of the state’s supply of fresh oysters and provides important local jobs. Even the sponsors of the original Point Reyes Wilderness Act wrote to Secretary Salazar supporting retention of the oyster farm as part of the pastoral zone in the Estero.
Wilderness versus local sustainable agricultural? These kinds of debates hinge on choosing among conflicting and subjective societal preferences as well as scientific evidence and analysis — precisely the things that make public discourse, discussion and debate important. But this fight has pitted environmentalist versus environmentalist, and in this fairly liberal community, neighbor versus neighbor.
In truth, the environmental “community” has never had much of a unified, ideological voice. Rather, it consists of millions of people who in one way or another support some forms of environmental protection and regulation, albeit with widely divergent political views and even differences of opinion around specific issues. As far back as the late 1800s and early 1900s there were recognized distinctions between the “conservation” and “preservation” movements, reflected in part in the ideologies of Gifford Pinchot and John Muir. Pinchot, a Republican who served the nation in many positions, including most prominently as head of federal forestry programs under President Theodore Roosevelt, believed in the public protection and ownership of forestry, but also in the economically efficient use of natural resources. Early preservationists such as John Muir believed in saving, and setting aside untouched and protected, the best of the unspoiled lands of the nation for future generations.
Deep down, I’m a preservationist: John Muir’s voice and vision featured prominently in my wedding vows and my world view, and I’m dismayed at the ongoing relentless destruction of our critical planetary ecosystems. But I’m also a pragmatist: I understand and recognize the complexities of modern society and meeting the basic needs of society in a sustainable way. I find myself arguing both sides of many of these issues, when faced with dogmatic, ideological positions.
These internal environmental disputes are legion: there are pro- and anti-nuclear environmentalists; a vigorous debate over the role of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture; differences of opinion over the role of natural gas in reducing greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change; disputes over the advantages and disadvantages of hydropower and dams; and more. These disputes are among the most interesting and challenging in the world of environmental science and policy: they involve values, priorities, culture and economics, but they also involve issues of science.
Too often in the past few years bad science, or indeed a philosophy antithetical to science, has been pushed by special interests and some policymakers. This isn’t new — there is a long history of pseudoscientific or downright anti-scientific thinking and political culture — ironic, given how much founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin valued science. Examples include creationism, moon-landing denialism, claims linking vaccines to autism, denials that tobacco causes cancer, and most recently the denial of the realities of climate change. This anti-science mentality is especially discouraging given how vital America’s scientific and technological strengths are to our economic and political strengths. In the area of climate change, for example, the respectedscientific journal Nature recently called Congressional inactions on climate “fundamentally anti-science” and an example of “willful ignorance,” saying:
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long.
Good science should have played a key role in the DrakesBay debacle, and open community discussion should have as well. But we didn’t get good science. Instead, the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior (DoI), and some local environmental supporters (with whom I often have strong common cause) manipulated, misreported and misrepresented science in their desire to support expanded wilderness. In an effort to produce a rationale to close the farm, false arguments were made that the farm damaged or disturbed local seagrasses, water quality, marine mammals and ecosystem diversity. These arguments have, one after another, been shown to be based on bad science and contradicted by evidence hidden or suppressed or ignored by federal agencies. The efforts of local scientists, especially Dr. Corey Goodman, professor emeritus from both Stanford and Berkeley and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science, were central to revealing the extent of scientific misconduct. Reviews by independent scientists and now confirmed by investigations at the Department of Interior and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences show that arguments of environmental harm from the oyster farm were misleading and wrong. One of those reviews criticized the “willingness to allow subjective beliefs and values to guide scientific conclusions,” the use of “subjective conclusions, vague temporal and geographic references, and questionable mathematic calculations,” and “misconduct [that] arose from incomplete and biased evaluation and from blurring the line between exploration and advocacy through research.” The review by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the Park Service:
selectively presented, over-interpreted, or misrepresented the available science on the potential impacts of the oyster mariculture operation.
In this case, I believe the decision to close the farm was the wrong one, done for the wrong reason, and it should be overturned. Supporters of the farm are still fighting, and it is possible that there will be a change of heart at either the federal level, or in the courts. But these kinds of disputes will continue throughout the country as we continue to seek to balance conservationist and preservationist ethics and objectives. No matter where this balance falls, however, scientific integrity, logic, reason, and the scientific method are core to the strength of our nation. We may disagree among ourselves about matters of opinion and policy, but we (and our elected representatives) must not misuse, hide or misrepresent science and fact in service of our preferences and ideology.
[Dr. Peter Gleick doesn't eat oysters and he likes wilderness. But he also likes science and sustainable local agriculture.]
Peter H. Gleick
Dr. Peter H. Gleick is co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California. He is a hydroclimatologist by training, with a B.S. from Yale University and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley from the Energy and Resources Group. His research and writing address the critical connections between water and human health, the hydrological impacts of climate change, sustainable water use, privatization and globalization, and international conflicts over water resources.
Dr. Gleick is an internationally recognized water expert and was named a MacArthur Fellow in October 2003 for his work. In 2001, Gleick was dubbed a “visionary on the environment” by the British Broadcasting Corporation. In 2006 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. In 2011, he and his Pacific Institute were awarded The U.S. Water Prize.
Gleick serves on the boards of numerous journals and organizations, and is the author of many scientific papers and nine books, including the biennial water report, “The World’s Water,” “Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water,” published by Island Press (Washington, D.C.), and his latest, “A 21st Century U.S. Water Policy” (Oxford University Press, NY).
Posted by Jane Gyorgy on January 24, 2013
http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/01-23-13-peter-gleick-on-sustainable-agriculture-wilderness-dboc-the-role-of-science-in-policy/
