More People Want Amy Trainer Exported

From letter to the editor, West Marin Citizen, July 10, 2014

Call for DBOC healing, but first…
Editor:
We are all aware of how divisive this
misadventure was, within our community
as well as within some families. A
number of people, Amy Trainer of the
EAC included, have called for a time of
healing.
I agree, we need a more united community
when the next environmental
challenge presents itself.
Within the past few months I reversed
my position on DBOC and concluded
that their time was up. I changed
my mind, not because their departure
would be a good idea or be beneficial
for the environment (it could have a
negative impact) but because the Secretary
of the Interior was within his legal
authority to decline an extension of a
lease, already expired.
This argument was not sufficient for
the opponents of the DBOC, the EAC in
particular, as well as the Sierra Club
and Earth Justice. They obfuscated the
argument with fabricated information
attacking the environmental stewardship
of the DBOC.
For healing to take place, those who
lied to us should not remain in positions
of responsibility. They should resign or
be fired. I wish that Amy Trainer were
the first to go.
Chet Seligman
Pt. Reyes Station

The Most Hated Woman in Marin

 

After the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Drakes Bay Oyster Farm, opponents paraded out the abrasive Amy Trainer to offer sneering and chiding public responses. A graduate of "mean-girl" tactics who offers disturbing reminders of 7th grade playground hair-pulling bullies, Trainer managed, once again to offend an estimated 85 percent of Marin folk - the ones who support the oyster farmers and truly care about the farm workers who are about to lose their homes, jobs, schools and friends. These images are from yet another Amy-gloat while she discussed the fate of the farm workers. It's time for Amy to ride off in her kayak to create a disturbance in yet another community. She's unwelcome in Washington and Colorado. Her alpaca farmer-father in Kansas must be ashamed of what she's become.
Really, non-profit corporations, is this who you want as the face of environmentalism?

Is This Really The Last Shot for the Long-Enduring Lunnys?

The title of this succinct piece jumps to  wrong conclusion -- that the battle for the Lunnys ends with the Supreme Court Decision -- a common misconception about what the Court does. If the Court decides not to take the Lunnys' case, well then yes, this is that last shot for the Lunnys, but the story is not over if they win because the family would then have to take their case back to the lower court. Impetuous proclamations that this battle is soon over by in a recent article by L.A. Times author with a grudge, Julie Cart, ignore the fact that a win at the Supreme Court is only the beginning of another long haul for this strong, steadfast, kind and caring family. We have no doubt that they are up to the challenge. 
Here is the opinion from Sonoma: 

One last Lunny long shot

Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:13 PM
By David Bolling/Index-Tribune Editor
Share:  Amazingly, you can still buy Drake’s Bay oysters.
That’s because the oyster war continues to unfold on the Pt. Reyes Peninsula, where Kevin and Nancy Lunny – with family roots deep in Sonoma – have been driven to the brink in their stubborn efforts to continue farming shellfish. The Lunnys are still in business, but it appears they have just one or two more legal lives to lose.
It could have been assumed that, when former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued an edict that the oyster farm’s lease had expired and must be banished from the pristine waters of Drake’s Bay, that was the end of the line.
Not so.
It could also have been assumed that when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, ruled in a split, 2-1 decision that Salazar’s edict was legal and binding, that that would be the end of the line.
Not so.
It could have been further assumed that, when the Lunny’s appeal was denied to have the court sit en banc, with a full, 11-judge panel to review the three-judge decision – a rare occurrence at best – that was surely the end of the line.
Nope.
On April 14, the Lunnys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit decision. The odds of the high court accepting the case are long, and longer still that it will accept the case and reverse the decision. But stranger things have happened, and meanwhile, the Lunnys are being allowed to continue farming until the final hand is played.
That’s because, according to the Lunnys, they have shown there is a “reasonable probability” the high court will take the case, and a “significant possibility” that the oyster farm will win.
In a recent press release, the Lunnys announced a decision on the writ could come as early as the end of June.
It is an intriguing, sometimes troubling issue, only partly about the sanctity of so-called “wilderness” lands, which Drakes Bay ostensibly became after its federal lease expired, under terms of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
For supporters of the wilderness conversion of Drakes Bay, the issue is simple: the Lunnys’ lease ran out. End of story. Commercial developments aren’t compatible with wilderness.
Except, perhaps, where they are.
Drakes Bay Peninsula lands are, and presumably will continue to be, farmed by commercial cattle ranchers. Commercial developments in Yosemite and Yellowstone and countless other wild parklands of America have somehow been accommodated.
And, it has been credibly demonstrated, the Lunnys’ oyster operation has no negative environmental impact on the land and waters of Drake’s Bay.
That may not matter, because the legal issues involved have nothing to do with environmental impacts. The key legal issue will likely be whether the federal government can be taken to court for abusing its discretionary power. That’s what the Supreme Court has to decide.
That the Lunnys will win their last battle is unlikely. And we think that’s a shame. Environmental leaders we respect think a Lunny victory would set a dangerous precedent for the preservation of wilderness land. We disagree.
We think the Lunnys represent a perfect example of a positive bridge between sustainable agriculture and wilderness protection.
We hope they prevail.

Trainer and Desai - Feet held to the Fire in Real Clear Politics - Tactics Mimic the Right Wing. Are they really leftists?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/11/protecting_a_bay_while_treading_on_truth_122602.html#ixzz31QIp3RA5
 
The problem is that one side (out-spoken environmental purists) rigged the game and is employing guilt-by-association, one of the most despicable (and least authentically liberal) methods of argumentation in the public policy arena.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/11/protecting_a_bay_while_treading_on_truth_122602.html#ixzz31QLh5rhb
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

... Neal Desai of the National Parks Conservation Association, has fudged facts when discussing this issue. He calls the Drakes Bay estuary “the only marine wilderness on the West Coast” (it isn’t) and claims harbor seals are “endangered” (they aren’t.)
The other spokesperson is Amy Trainer of the West Marin Environmental Action Committee. Her preferred method of argumentation is ad-hominem attacks. When Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter offered an amendment that would have directed the government to renew the farm’s lease, Trainer unleashed a rhetoric attack on Kevin Lunny, who doesn’t know Vitter and hadn’t asked him for anything.
“Apparently right-wing politicians and industry lobbyists on Capitol Hill have made this policy-based decision about protecting our most special waters into a national cause celebre of conservatives,” she said. “It appears that the corporation’s deep-dive into special interest, right-wing politics has backfired … in the rabid attempt to attack national parks, and [is] in fact making statements that inadvertently undermine the corporation’s own arguments before the court.”

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/11/protecting_a_bay_while_treading_on_truth_122602.html#ixzz31QIp3RA5
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Must Fed Agencies follow NEPA? Misinterpretation of Law appealable to Supreme Court?

http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/04-02-14-us-supreme-court-to-decide-04-14-14-to-hear-or-not-to-hear-dboc/

(F)ormer Interior Secretary Ken Salazar denied the permit, citing a flawed environmental impact report while simultaneously claiming it didn’t rely on that same report. The oyster farm is seeking an emergency injunction staying their eviction while it sues for a new hearing on the permit, saying the prior decision was based on a misinterpretation of science and law. The Ninth Circuit denied the injunction in a 2 to 1 decision, asserting the court has no jurisdiction to overrule an agency’s decision, even if the decision is based on misinterpretation of law. Judge Watford, an Obama appointee, dissented. Drake’s Bay is taking their case to the Supreme Court.

1975: Sierra Club Vice-Chair writes that Wilderness Status INCLUDES Oyster Farm

History coming back to bite the 'environmentalist' (or stalker) who gnawed at the heels of state, local, and national agencies trying to push them into the questionable attempt to rid the estero of the beloved oyster farm because it "ruined his hiking and kayak trips". He should have read the history of his own organization (full disclosure - he got the booted several years ago):

1975 Letter from Vice Chairman for Wilderness Issues, Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter clarifies:

“Wilderness status does not mean an end to the harvesting of oysters in the Estero, or a prohibition on the use of motorboats by the company in carrying out its operations. “

“The Wilderness Act permits prior non-conforming commercial uses to continue and the secretary of the Interior can authorize the continued use of motorboats in support of the enterprise. Departmental memoranda express this quite clearly and the regional solicitor has interpreted the act to permit specifically this commercial operation.”

 

page

2