"Our government and its corporate sponsors have created a system of subsidies that has to be abolished. They turned the lands into a commodity. We have to get public land users off this welfare system. It is not a simple thing to break those chains." - Kieran Suckling, Founder, Center for Biological Diversity

For a well-documented overview of how the Center for Biological Diversity, with roots in Trainer's San Juan Islands, manages to kill off over 4,000 farms, most of them multi-generational family farms without a hint of guilt, skip on over to sister-site, trojanheron.blogspot.com. Succinct summary there.

Time to protect Pt. Reyes farms!

Yet another Letter to the Editor Demanding Trainer Be Fired:

Yet another Letter to the Editor Demanding Trainer Be Fired:

During my three-year tenure as board president of a non-profit organization, one of my responsibilities was to make sure that our executive director followed the letter and the spirit of the goals and objectives set forth in our mission statement. 

From my reading of the Environmental Action Committee’s (EAC) mission statement on their website (www.eacmarin.org) the conduct of their executive director Amy Trainer is similarly in conflict with the objectives of the organization she works for.

Here are some examples: “EAC works for...the preservation of a rural, community spirit”; EAC uses law, policy, science and education to: create a common ground of understanding and promote informed debate; and encourage and facilitate productive resolutions to land-use conflicts by working closely with those who own, manage and use West Marin lands.”

Ms. Trainer’s take-no-prisoners approach to problem solving has made an absolute mockery of the goals stated above. And even now that the fate of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC) is squarely in the hands of the courts, and has been for several months, her most recent attempt to smear DBOC and the Lunny family is stark evidence of how she has allowed her role in this conflict to degenerate, without apology, into a personal vendetta. 

If this is the kind of reprehensible conduct the EAC is proud to support then the gaping wounds that have been opened in the hearts and minds of so many people in this community and beyond will only continue to fester. If not, then the EAC must take quick and decisive action to find new leadership for its executive position.

Having gone all in with Ms. Trainer in their wilderness-at-any-cost campaign, this will not be an easy task for the EAC, and it will be especially difficult because in a small organization where everyone knows each other, the bonds of association and friendship will frequently cause a board of directors to put off making such a crucial decision. I know from my own experience with this process, that the longer you wait to release a toxic employee the worse it gets for all concerned.

If the EAC has any hope of reclaiming its birthright as an organization dedicated to truth, scientific integrity and personal accountability in the pursuit of the goals and objectives as proclaimed by its founders, there is only one choice they can make. And only when they find the courage to do so can real healing truly begin.

Bruce Mitchell

Inverness

As far back as 1961 the National Park Service said the oyster company was a beneficial part of the Point Reyes seashore and should be kept. That is part of the legal case that is on a path to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Federal Court Opinion: National Park Service Has Misinterpreted Law Since 2004 "Bizarre"

September 9, 2013:  Robin Carpenter interviewed Drakes Bay Oyster Company attorney Peter Prows who said the case may very well reach the United States Supreme Court. Read West Marin Citizen story here.

What’s really remarkable is, going back to 2004, after the Lunnys spent a couple hundred thousand dollars to invest and fix up the oyster farm, they got a letter and a memo from the Park Service saying that the wilderness laws, in particular the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act, mandated that the Park Service not issue a new permit to the oyster farm when the  existing permit expired in November of 2012. This is a legal position that the Park Service has now taken over the last 8 to 10 years.

The Park had the law wrong:

 There’s really no question anymore that the Park Service has had the law wrong all along.

Ninth District Court called this change of position "bizarre:"

For 30 years before the Park Service’s memo to the Lunnys, that’s what everybody thought that legislation meant. The Department of Interior told Congress in the 1970’s that the oyster farm was a beneficial use there and should continue notwithstanding whatever wilderness legislation was passed. The Environmental Action Committee of West Marin told Congress essentially the same thing. The Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club had the same view. Everybody had the same view of what the law should accomplish and what the law meant. It wasn’t until 30 years later that the Park Service and some of these groups changed positions. Judge Watford called that a “bizarre” change of position.

Text of Federal Court dissent: 

 The Department’s legal analysis concluded—bizarrely, given the legislative history recounted above—that by designating Drakes Estero as a potential wilderness addition in the Point Reyes Wilderness Act, Congress had “mandated” elimination of the oyster farm. The Department never identified anything in the text of the Act to support that view; it cited only a passage
from the House Report accompanying H.R. 8002. But that passage “is in no way anchored in the text of the statute,” Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573, 583–84 (1994), and thus provides no support for the Department’s interpretation of the Act.

Capricious and Illegal? "Secretary had no authority" - Judge Watford

But the dissenting opinion by Judge Paul Watford said that the Secretary’s decision did indeed rely on a belief—an unfounded belief, he said—that the existence of the oyster farm violated the law, which means his decision was capricious and illegal.  Good coverage of Drake's Bay Oyster Company's situation and continuing battle to keep 40% of California's oysters available in the Pulitzer Prize winning Point Reyes Light here. The blue signs are still up and the community at large is happily supporting the Lunny family.

For "anonymous" here is a photo of the 2011 tax statement from EAC showing how much Trainer made to create 'hits' on the Lunnys. She needs to learn that good-will goes a long way out here in the boonies!

Annual Salary 2011: $62,871 - that would feed a lot of oyster worker families!

Drakes Bay Oyster Company Remains Open and Will Petition for Rehearing by Ninth Circuit’s Full Eleven Judge Panel

INVERNESS, CA —  The historic oyster farm and last oyster cannery in California announced today that it plans to file a petition requesting that their case be reheard in front of a full eleven-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. Drakes Bay Oyster Company has assured its supporters that this is not the end for them and has pledged to continue the fight to remain open.

The farm announced that, within 45 days, it will file a petition for an En Banc rehearing.  In the meantime, the farm remains open for business. 

The small, family-owned farm, which has been in a heated legal battle with federal regulators for its survival, is adamant that the majority opinion got it wrong. “After reading the Court’s decision -- and especially the dissent from Judge Watford -- we are more convinced than ever that we will prevail based on the merits of our case” said Kevin Lunny, owner of Drakes Bay.

While the Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel ruled 2 to 1 yesterday against the oyster farm, the company believes the dissenting opinion of Judge Paul J. Watford was absolutely correct.  In that dissenting opinion, the Judge admonished the majority’s decision, asserting that it consisted of “hand waving,” containing “nothing of any substance” and that “Drakes Bay is likely to prevail on the merits” (see pg. 47 from the Ninth Circuit decision).

In his dissent, Judge Watford also agreed with the oyster farm that, in enacting the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act, “all indications are that Congress viewed the oyster farm as a beneficial, pre-existing use whose continuation was fully compatible with wilderness status” (see pg. 44 of the decision).  Only recently, he observed, did the Interior Department “bizarrely” change position and insist that the law required the oyster farm to leave in 2012 (see page 43 of the decision).

Drakes Bay remains optimistic that the farm will be successful in the next stages of its legal battle. “With the support of thousands of environmentalists, community members and elected leaders around the nation, we will continue to fight for what’s right and remain committed to succeeding in our fight to remain open and serve our community,” Lunny said. “Although we strongly disagree with the panel’s decision, we remain steadfast in our opinion that we can prevail based on the merits of our case,” Lunny said.

Don't Lose Heart - Keep your BLUE SIGNS UP!

Drake's Bay Oyster Company lost the federal injunction to continue operating until they have their day in court. BUT! Keep your blue signs up! The state, which owns the water bottoms, has a lease with the Lunny Family that is not impacted and is still in effect meaning the oyster farm can still operate. Get ready to be more supportive than ever!