Wednesday, September 4, 2013

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.

3 comments:

  1. Judge Watford for Governor ... Senator at least!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Judge Watford recognizes the scientific ploy of environmental extremists represented by attorneys like the one from San Juan County - Amy Trainer. The extremist attorneys wish to annihilate civilization to the point of no recovery but however of these "Friends" live in the "real world" they hope to destroy someday. The Drakes Bay oyster farm is every much as important to the history of the Marin County and Northern California region as the Coliseum is to Rome. The instant that the likes of Trainer take off their shoes, turn in their car keys, and live in a tent, we'll listen to what they have to say. Until then folks like this are an embarrassment to environmentalism and give "green" a bad name. Much respect to the dissenting Judge who recognize the phony science and baffling arguments made by people like Trainer - the right wing of the environmental extremists. I'd love to see trainer try and take on an old money Italian dairy farmer - in fact, I dare her. Bring it on Amy. We'll be waiting in Marin County.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Funny, I was just thinking that the logical result of the position of these extremists would be that they should quietly commit suicide as the ultimate sacrifice, thereby achieving their ultimate goal--removal of all humans from the earth--while providing sustenance for many of earth's creatures (the GOOD ones, not humans).

    ReplyDelete