Saturday, October 26, 2013

Psuedo-Environmentalists Resorting to Vandalism in Point Reyes - Steal & Destroy Signs


Oyster supporters plagued by vandalism

By Christopher Peak -- Point Reyes Light

Early this month, half a dozen people stood outside a defunct factory, painting their biggest project yet: a 13-foot by 6.5-foot mural of the nowubiquitous sign supporting Drakes Bay Oyster Farm.

Sweating in the heat, the group of painters dipped their brushes in blue and white as they transformed a wall at the old Rich’s Readimix Quarry building on Point Reyes-Petaluma Road into a watery scene of gentle waves and sunshine. Drivers waved and honked their horns as they passed. The painters had no idea how the finished product was going to look, so as soon as they finished, they ran up the road to admire their accomplishment.

Last Saturday morning, the project was gone, destroyed by a vandal during the night. The wall had been splashed with gray paint, leaving only a hint of an orange sun visible. 

Inline image 2Inline image 1


“A cloudy, sad day in Point Reyes,” the painters said among themselves.

Since a small grassroots group began fashioning the free signs with donated plywood, producing around 600 copies to date, their work has been defaced or stolen repeatedly. Members of the coalition have been frightened by intrusions on supporters’ property and worry the destructive tactics will only further divide the West Marin community around the Drakes Bay controversy.

Bridger Mitchell, the president of West Marin’s Environmental Action Committee, condemned the vandalism. “We don’t condone in any way that type of vandalism or malicious defacement,” e said. “I’ve checked with people at the  EAC, and we know nothing about it,” he added. 

Mr. Mitchell said the EAC offices faced similar attacks after Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar issued his decision to close the farm: someone dumped toilet fixtures on their doorstep.

“The EAC would fully support citizens’ rights to express themselves politically. It’s evidently something that a number of people feel they want to do and that’s fine,” he said. “We don’t think it’s helpful to conduct dialogue with those instruments. It’s not a political campaign, it’s not who votes for who. The dialogue is really going on now in the United States courts.”

The loose coalition of oyster company supporters consists of roughly a dozen volunteer sign painters—some publicly identified, some anonymous—without a formal structure or hierarchy. They formed in March in response to heightened tensions and a noticeable decline in the tenor of the conversation that had devolved into name-calling and ad hominem attacks, said Robin Carpenter, one of the original members. It seemed you were either a “Koch brothers conspirator” or a “wilderness crazy,” she said.

Following the lead of chef Alice Waters and the other community organizations who submitted a “friends of the court,” or amicus curiae, brief, the signs gave people a non-combative way to communicate their support for the oyster company, Ms. Carpenter said.

“We wanted a positive statement, something happy and nonthreatening and nonjudgmental,” she said. “We didn’t want anything creepy, since we have a lot of visitors here.”

Citing poster campaigns like the feminist Guerilla Girls and roadside advertisements like Burma Shave’s 1950’s billboards as inspiration, the group made a message into artwork. The signs have been produced without any help from Drakes Bay Oyster Company, but with their blessing, members said.

Sonoma Valley resident Yannick Phillips first came up with the idea for handpainted signs and painted messages on staves from wine barrels, before Barbara Ravizza, a Stinson Beach resident, designed the current version for a larger sign that could be easily reproduced.

Supporters have gathered at open parties where the work runs like a factory line, each volunteer specializing in one aspect. Ms. Ravizza sometimes tells the painters their waves look too much like tsunamis or that the letters are too curvy, but having a unique, handmade sign is part of the appeal, Ms. Carpenter said.

Backers say the signs have had enormous success, sprouting up across Sonoma, Napa and Marin. Some have been seen as far north as Portland, south in Los Angeles, and even as far east as Iowa.

Yet despite the group’s intention to improve the dialogue, a recent surge in vandalism has made supporters question whether they have accomplished their goal or whether this too will devolve into a war without compromise or respect for the other side’s opinions.

The first instances of vandalism in early May were almost comical to the group members. Some opponents simply painted out “Oyster Farm” or inserted “Go Wild” as a message of their support for wilderness in Drakes Bay. Judy Teichman, one of the painters, joked that these vandals did not understand branding when they appropriated the highly recognizable work, instead of designing an original.

But recently, the sabotage has become more violent and widespread, supporters said. Ms. Carpenter awoke on a June morning to find a curse word scrawled in black marker across the sign outside her home in Lagunitas. Jeff Creque, an ALSA board member and Inverness resident, has had multiple signs stolen. Some fences in Bolinas were damaged when vandals ripped down signs screwed into posts. And one sign placed at the Rich’s Readimix Quarry Building, where the mural was recently painted and vandalized, was thrown into a stream behind the building.

“I felt violated,” Ms. Carpenter said of the vandalism to her sign. “It’s scary to have someone on my property at my home or in my garden having enough anger to rip something off or write something ugly.”

Frustrated by the vandalism, the group contacted the Readimix property owners and asked for permission to paint a giant sign on the side of the building, a highly visible message that couldn’t be tossed away. Ms. Ravizza sketched a design and the coalition set up a scaffold and completed the project in three hours.

Fearing the same person who had destroyed previous signs at the factory would return, they posted a red warning against potential trespassers. Neither sign deterred the vandal—or vandals.

When Michael Greenberg, an Inverness resident, found out the sign he helped paint was ruined, he started fuming. “This is a breakdown of society that we can no longer shrug at,” he said. He doubted the vandals had considered the implications of their actions. “This only entrenches people and makes them angry. It encourages other people to put up more signs,” he added.

No police reports of vandalism to the signs have been submitted in the past 90 days, said Sgt. Hugh Baker, perhaps indicative of the pervasiveness of the problem or a realization by supporters that the sheriff’s office probably has bigger shellfish to fry.

The sign painters wonder whether the vandals are opponents of the farm or simply a group of kids who want to stir things up, isolated incidents or a group conspiracy. “It could be anybody,” Ms. Carpenter said.

The painters are publishing ads and distributing flyers for a “Sign Replacement Service,” repainting the large mural at the Readimix and continuing to work down the waiting list of supporters who want their own signs.

“Our signs will keep getting bigger and bigger,” Mr. Greenberg said. “See if you can carry that away.”

Earth Day Co-Founder & Environmental Hero: Lawmakers Join Fight to Save DBOC


Ex-lawmakers join fight to keep Drakes Bay Oyster Company open

  • By GUY KOVNER   -- THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
October 23, 2013, 4:38 PM
Two former California lawmakers who helped establish Point Reyes National Seashore have filed a federal court brief supporting a commercial oyster farm’s right to continue harvesting shellfish in the park’s protected waters.
William Bagley, a former Marin County assemblyman, and Pete McCloskey, a former Bay Area congressman, filed a 26-page brief this week supporting Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s bid for a rehearing by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which rejected the company’s case in September.
Their “friend of the court” brief challenged the legality of former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision nearly a year ago not to renew oyster farmer Kevin Lunny’s permit to raise oysters in Drakes Estero, a 2,500-acre Pacific Ocean estuary.
The brief, backed by 11 other parties including the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, also asserted that even without a federal permit for use of the estero shoreline, Lunny could continue oyster cultivation under a state lease of the estero “water bottoms.”
Lunny, who plants and harvests $1.5 million worth of oysters a year from the estero, said he agreed with the brief’s “legal analysis” but hasn’t evaluated the prospect of working without a land base.
“We’re still focused on getting the onshore permit,” he said. “If it gets denied, we have to look at those other options.”
Lunny’s own lawyers last week asked the 9th Circuit to reconsider the 2-1 ruling that supported a government shutdown order based on Salazar’s action last November.
The appeals court could take a few months to decide whether to submit Lunny’s case to an 11-judge panel.
Bagley and McCloskey weighed in on the oyster company controversy in a 2011 letter to Salazar asserting that the Point Reyes seashore, created in 1962, was intended “to retain an oyster farm and California’s only oyster cannery in the Drakes Estero.”
Bagley authored the 1965 state bill that transferred the Point Reyes tidelands to the National Park Service, and McCloskey secured $35 million from the Nixon administration for the 1972 purchase of the ranch lands surrounding the estero.
Their letter noted that former Rep. John Burton and former Sen. John Tunney, testifying on a 1976 wilderness designation bill for Drakes Estero, said the oyster farm was to continue as a “non-conforming use.”
McCloskey, who lives on a ranch in Rumsey, Yolo County, blamed park service bureaucrats for the change in direction regarding the estero.
“I’m pissed off,” he said in a telephone interview. “I’m 86 years old and I wish I was young enough to get back into this fight.”
McCloskey, a co-founder of the first Earth Day, received the Sierra Club’s first “environmental hero” award in 2010.
The brief, written by San Francisco attorney Judith Teichman, asserted that Salazar’s decision was “ultra vires,” meaning beyond the power, by interfering with the state’s leases and Lunny’s rights under the leases.
A previous “friend of the court” brief, submitted in April by four environmental groups, rejected the argument that California could continue to lease the estero water bottoms for aquaculture without a federal permit for use of the shoreline property.
[END_CREDIT_0]You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or guy.kovner@pressdemocrat.com.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Co-author of Endanger Species Act joins Luminaries in Legal Cause for DBOC


Luminaries File Brief in Support of Drakes Bay Oyster
Environmentalists, Agricultural Leaders, Elected Officials, and
Leaders of Local Sustainable Food Movement File Amici Curiae Brief

INVERNESS, CALIF. — Drakes Bay Oyster Company announced today that an impressive group of environmentalists and proponents of sustainable agriculture filed an Amici Curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of its petition requesting an En Banc hearing of its case in the Ninth Circuit. The historic oyster farm is fighting to remain open in the face of Park Service wrongdoing. Its case in the Ninth Circuit is about the request for an injunction to remain in business while its lawsuit against the agency proceeds.
The brief argues: “The Drakes Bay Oyster Company is a treasured part of California’s coastal zone in the Point Reyes National Seashore.  Shellfish from Drakes Estero are an important part of the San Francisco Bay Area’s world famous local, sustainably raised food movement.  Modern environmentalists hail Marin County and DBOC as a model for sustainable agriculture. Consistent with Federal policies supporting increasing the Nation’s supply of sustainably raised seafood, California, which leases Drakes Estero to DBOC, has declared shellfish cultivation there to be ‘in the public interest.’ ”
Joining the brief are:
·         Former Congressman “Pete” McCloskey, coauthor of the Endangered Species Act, who intervened with the Office of the President to secure the 1970 Congressional appropriation that enabled the National Park Service to create the Seashore,
·         Former State Assemblyman William T. Bagley, who in 1965 authored Assembly Bill 124 transferring the Point Reyes tidelands to the National Park Service, specifically reserving the State’s right to fish,
·         Phyllis Faber, a noted wetland scientist who helped found, and served on, the California Coastal Commission, and co-founded the Marin Agricultural Land Trust,
·         Mark Dowie, an award-winning investigative environmental and science reporter and resident of Marin County with a stated interest “is in ensuring that public policy and decisions impacting the environment are based on accurate facts and sound science,"
·         Tomales Bay Association, a 50-year old West Marin County environmental organization that supports DBOC “as a critical component of on-going habitat restoration projects for Threatened & Endangered species, especially native oyster restoration projects in SF Bay and elsewhere in the State, because it is the last operating cannery in California and therefore the only readily available source of shell in California,”
·         Patricia Unterman, owner of the Hayes Street Grill, known for its fresh fish, who says “The loss of the oysters produced by DBOC would have a devastating impact on our mission, our menu and the expectations and pleasure of our customers.  We cannot replace the fresh, local, shucked oysters from DBOC,”
·         Tomales Bay Oyster Company, one of two oyster farms located on Tomales Bay in Marin County with retail shops along State Highway One; its retail and picnic area is at capacity and its customers will be adversely affected if DBOC’s 50,000 customers attempt to visit,
·         Alliance for Local Sustainable Agriculture,  an unincorporated association of people who believe that “a diversified and healthy agricultural community is important to our individual health and to our community’s and our nation’s safety, economy and environment,” and are “advocates for the use of good science and fair processes,”
·         The California Farm Bureau Federation and the Marin and Sonoma County FarmBureaus, nonprofit voluntary membership corporations that exist to protect and promote agricultural interests in the State and in their Counties,
·         Food Democracy Now, a grassroots movement of more than 350,000 American farmers and citizens dedicated to reforming policies relating to food, agriculture and the environment,
·         Marin Organic, founded in 2001 to foster “direct relationship between organic producers, restaurants, and consumers” to strengthen the commitment and support for local organic farms, such as DBOC. 

Friday, October 18, 2013

Lunnys Did *Not* Have Full Disclosure From Park Service Before it Purchased Oyster Farm FILES FOR EN BANC


EXCERPTS FROM THE DBOC BRIEF TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Rehearing Petition)

First Paragraph of DBOC Brief
“Before it became obsessed with destroying the only oyster farm in Point Reyes National Seashore, the National Park Service had for many decades supported the oyster farm, as did local environmental groups and the community at large. The oyster farm and the surrounding cattle ranches provide the agricultural heritage the Seashore was created to protect. When Congress was considering legislation that became the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act (“1976 Act”), wilderness proponents “stressed a common theme: that the oyster farm was a beneficial pre-existing use that should be allowed to continue notwithstanding the area’s designation as wilderness.” (Op. 40 (Watford, J., dissenting).) To this day, modern environmentalists and proponents of sustainable agriculture praise Drakes Bay as a superb example of how people can produce high-quality food in harmony with the environment.”

Park Service Sustained Vendetta Against Drakes Bay
Since 2005, for reasons that remain a mystery, the Park Service has changed position and sustained a vendetta against the oyster farm. The Park Service has been reprimanded by the National Academy of Sciences, which in 2009 found that the Park Service had “selectively presented, over-interpreted, and misrepresented the available scientific information”, and by the Solicitor’s Office of the Department of the Interior, which in 2011 found “bias” and “misconduct” in the evaluation of harbor-seal data.

Footnote # 6 (Excerpt) – Secretary Salazar Admitted – DBOC Not Told Farm to Shut Down, Renewal Clause Not to be Honored
Although, as the Secretary recognized, Drakes Bay received the Park Service’s legal analysis only after it purchased the oyster farm (ER 120, see ER 180, ¶64), the majority mistakenly asserted that “Drakes Bay purchased the oyster farm with full disclosure” and that “the only reasonable expectation Drakes Bay could have had at the outset was that such a closure was very likely”. (Op. 36-37.) This mistake controlled the majority’s review of the equities.

 Park Service Reprimanded by the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Interior’s Office of the Solicitor
Here a federal agency has behaved so badly that it has been reprimanded by the National Academy of Sciences and the Solicitor’s Office for misconduct, and by Congress for misinterpreting the law. Despite these reprimands, the agency continued to make false scientific statements and insist on the very misinterpretation Congress overrode. Courts should provide a remedy whenever an agency bases its action on false statements and acts in disobedience of a Congressional directive. And yet the majority held that courts lack jurisdiction to determine whether this type of agency action was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. This holding is wrong. Congress could not have intended to allow an agency to disobey a statute, or to base permit decisions on false statements, and yet be immune from judicial review. Nor could Congress have intended that a court would have jurisdiction to review an agency’s discretionary decision for everything except abuse of discretion. En banc rehearing is needed.

Park Service Misconduct Raises Significant Legal Principle – Is the Park Service Above the Law and Beyond Accountability
“The decision could potentially prohibit courts from considering whether agencies were arbitrary and capricious or abused their discretion in countless decisions granting or denying ordinary permits.”

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Myth Buster, Laura Watt - Did park coerce sales of ranches to form PRNS?

While the Drakes Bay lawyers make the case that the oyster company was always intended to be part of the Point Reyes National Seashore historically, author Laura Watt is shredding one myth after another as she looks back into history. She found the ranches were never in danger of coming under development before the NPS bought them and that NPS maneuvered them into a corner that resulted in the ranchers selling their properties to Department of Interior. Listen to her interview with KOWS radio host, Arnold Levine by clicking here.

And in some non news, seemingly it is EAC and its mouthpiece who published more questionable science on a questionable blog here. Guess no professional reporter would pick up the story. Was that because there had been no fact-checking?

Friday, October 11, 2013

Who is *Really* Behind Fight to Oust DBOC - "Too Many Lawsuits"

Rather than saving species and conserving their habitats, the ESA is used as a sword to tear down the American economy, drive up food, energy and housing costs and wear down and take out rural communities and counties. Center for Biological Diversity and it's followers such as the Environmental Action Committee believe they influence left-leaning thinkers not to pay attention to anything at all that comes from the right. If CBD's actions harm the environment, it may be time to take a look at all sides of the issue. CBD, which brags about killing 4-5,000 mostly family farms, got over 2 million dollars in 3 years from the federal government in a twisted series of aggressive lawsuits. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman, Doc Hastings reports on "too many lawsuits" here.  

"...the Center for Biological Diversity was involved in over 50 individual cases, open between 2009 and 2012, where they were the lead plaintiff. "
It is important to watch CBD in order to protect local agriculture and to prevent the loss of more farms, especially the few farms left on the Point Reyes Peninsula.

Wilderness Act intended for Drakes Bay Oyster Company to stay.


Marin Voice: Oysters in the wilderness

Marin Independent Journal

Marin News

By Jim Linford
Guest op-ed column
Posted:   10/10/2013 08:00:00 PM PDT

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site234/2013/1010/20131010__nmij1011voicelinford%7E1_VIEWER.JPG
Jim Linford
THOSE OF US who have followed the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. case understand that the three-judge decision handed down at the beginning of September went against the oyster farm by 2-1.
But it is not well understood that the judges did all agree on a very important fact: When Congress designated the wilderness in the Point Reyes National Seashore in 1976, it thought the oyster farm to be compatible with wilderness and expected the farm to remain indefinitely.
The dissent fully develops this understanding of the original congressional intent, and the majority acknowledges "the accuracy of the dissent's recitation of the legislative history of the 1976 Act."
Here is the puzzle: All three judges agreed that Congress intended the oyster farm to be compatible with wilderness. And yet two of them upheld the secretary's decision to close down the oyster farm based on his misunderstanding that Congress supposedly thought the oyster farm to be incompatible with wilderness.
How could that happen?
First, the majority thought that the secretary's decision did not have to pay attention to congressional intent because of recent special legislation regarding the Drakes Bay oyster case. And second, since (former) counsel for the oyster farm shared the secretary's misunderstanding, the oysters-in-the-wilderness approach was never properly presented and did not really need to be considered.
The dissent disagreed and attributed the misunderstanding to the secretary's legal counsel.
How pristine does wilderness need to be?
In the 2010 Wilderness Watch case, the Ninth Circuit rejected a narrow understanding of the Wilderness Act, one that would preserve the wilderness in a museum diorama, one that we might observe only from a safe distance, behind a brass railing and a thick glass window.
Rather, it is the act's intent to assure that the wilderness be preserved as wilderness and made accessible to people, "devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation and historical use."
Although the Wilderness Act generally precludes commercial activities, it specifically allows for the continuation of animal grazing rights that pre-existed the wilderness designation (and, I would argue, for bivalve as well as bovine grazing).
Given this provision and the continuation of grazing within the Point Reyes National Seashore, it is no surprise that in 1976 Congress expected the oyster farm to remain in operation.
The Drakes Bay oyster farm case was not fully developed when presented to the district court and court of appeals. I hope that the Court of Appeals allows it to develop properly by granting the request for an en banc rehearing.
On a more personal level, a rehearing could also permit the correction of an odd misunderstanding at the beginning of the opinion:
"This appeal ... pits an oyster farm, oyster lovers and well-known 'foodies' against environmentalists aligned with the federal government."
If we have learned anything at all from the public debate over this matter, it is that there are "environmentalists" on both sides.
Certainly those of us who support sustainable agriculture (a "conservation use" of the seashore) see it as an environmentalist cause.
It would be helpful for the court to acknowledge that fact.
Jim Linford of Marinwood is a semi-retired appellate attorney and an active member of the California Bar.