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

 

EAC & NPCA's Neil Desai have some 'splainin' to do.

Marin Voice: Pt. Reyes oyster farm critics ignore environmental facts

By Peter Prows -

Guest op-ed column

THE National Parks Conservation Association's spokesman Neal Desai and his allies like the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (EAC) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), have some serious explaining to do.

First, they should explain why they have flip-flopped on the oyster farm.

When Congress was debating wilderness legislation for Point Reyes in 1976, every interested environmental and civic organization told Congress that the oyster farm should be allowed to "continue unrestrained by wilderness designation" because it is "considered desirable by both the public and park managers."
What changed?
Second, they should explain why they have such trouble with the truth. Mr. Desai claims that Drakes Estero would be the "first marine wilderness area on the west coast." But Drakes Estero won't even be the first marine wilderness in Point Reyes; it'll be the fourth.
Mr. Desai seems not to have noticed that Estero de Limantour, Abbott's Lagoon, and the southern end of Drakes Estero were designated as wilderness in 1999.
Mr. Desai and his allies have also made claim after false claim of various "egregious" environmental harms allegedly caused by the oyster farm. In fact, Drakes Estero is thriving: the water quality is excellent, eelgrass has doubled, and the harbor seals just had their best pupping season on record.
Third, Mr. Desai and his allies should explain why they goaded state Coastal Commission staff into breaking their agreement with the oyster farm. Commission staff and the oyster farm had agreed that the farm's permit application would be processed when the federal environmental review was complete. Read more

Marin Voice: Oysters and wilderness can co-exist

Is there a compromise, an equitable solution to the oyster war? Linford (below) argues for this in this week's Marin Independent Journal. The National Park Service, the Marine Mammal Center, the EAC, and others have steadfastly refused to meet with the Lunnys to talk about the logical and fair solution. Kevin Lunny is often misrepresented as a millionaire businessman but he actually represents a very large family of DBOC owners. Spinners like Amy Trainer and Gordon Bennett use right-wing antics like planting false stories into the public arena early and often to frame the narrative their own way. The pair, weekend-naturalists, email-blast a continual stream of press releases regurgitating the same bad facts. Early on they tried to frame the narrative by introducing misleading sound bites and catchy one-liners - an approach which copies the Republican agenda.While most reputable reporters have double-checked the pair's bad facts, discovered the lies, the defamation, the mean-spirited attacks including disingenuous allegations of Koch-connections and gone forward to publish fair and balanced reports, the Trainnets have resorted to publishing their own 'stories' on a fringe blog site that wears out the old cliche "Main stream media is ignoring my story."

Jim Linford of Marinwood is a semi-retired appellate attorney who has filed a pro bono amicus brief in support of rehearing on behalf of an historic resource foundation:

 A basic misunderstanding of the Wilderness Act has led to misperceptions about the legal setting of the oyster farm case. The misunderstanding comes from a philosophical division between wilderness purists and wilderness pragmatists. Purists take "wilderness" to mean "pristine wildness," while pragmatists see "wilderness" as a nuanced legal framework where the pristine ideal can coexist with a wider range of use and purpose, although always shaped by overarching preservationist values.

For the purist, there can never be any commercial activity whatsoever within a wilderness area.

This is the position taken in an amicus brief recently filed by the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin and others, in opposition to the request that the Ninth Circuit rehear the oyster farm case.
However, the Wilderness Act itself falls on the pragmatic side of the divide. For example, although there is indeed a general rule against, notably, commercial activity within a designated wilderness, there are exceptions to that prohibition.
Thus, the act provides that commercial animal grazing can continue in a designated wilderness if the grazing rights existed when it became a wilderness.
The act also provides for commercial activity that serves the "public purpose" (as defined by the act) of "recreational" use. That provision was applied by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2004 case to hold that wranglers could hire out their services providing pack-animals to carry camping supplies into the wilderness. The court's opinion was careful to assure that such exceptional commercial use would have a minimum impact on the wilderness.
In any case, this "public purpose" exception would not apply, for example, to logging, and if large corporate interests wanted to log western forests currently designated wilderness, they would need to reverse the wilderness designations. 
Read more.

National Park Service Scientists are "Advocates and Not Scientists"

Fear of facts

Opinion

by Corey Goodman

Point Reyes Light, December 5, 2013

When I was a student at Stanford, one of the things I enjoyed most was the way scientists debated facts. No claim could be made without data to back it up, and all data were subject to robust scrutiny and examined for holes and errors. That was how we were taught to seek truth. We were encouraged to ask tough questions, and were taught that science is just as much about disproving old hypotheses as deriving new ones. It was the same culture of science I taught to my students throughout my career. 

Thus it came as a shock when, nearly 40 years later, I first got involved in the oyster farm debate and discovered that none of the National Park Service scientists or their local supporters wanted to discuss the data. At Supervisor Steve Kinsey’s request, I examined that data. As I reported at the county hearing on May 8, 2007, the data did not support their accusations.

At that same hearing, Dr. Sarah Allen made her infamous 80 percent claim— that harbor seals were down 80 percent at one location due to the oyster farm. The next day I did what any scientist would do: I wrote and asked her to share the data and methods on which she had based the claim. She never replied.

By that point I had been a practicing scientist for more than 30 years and was an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences. Never in my career had I written such a request and not received an answer. As a result, I did something I had never before done: I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request. I didn’t know how to do it; my friend Mark Dowie taught me.

Then I got another surprise. Park Service Regional Director Jon Jarvis responded and refused to share the data. He even refused to reveal the location at which the 80 percent decline occurred. Later, in the summer of 2007, Senator Dianne Feinstein instructed Mr. Jarvis to give me the data. He did so, and my analysis was clear: the 80 percent decline took place in the wilderness area, far from the oyster farm. When park scientists continued to refuse to talk, I published my findings in this newspaper.

For several years afterward, park supporters publicly said I was wrong. Dr. Allen remained silent. Finally, in 2010, nearly three years after she made her claim, Dr. Allen retracted it.

Since 2007, the park and its supporters have continued to make erroneous claims of environmental harm by the oyster farm, and as each claim is debunked, they abandon it and move on to a new accusation.

At first their focus was harbor seal disturbances. Those claims were put to rest when Dr. Brent Stewart, the marine mammal expert hired by the park to analyze the hundreds of thousands of secret photographs taken of seals and oyster boats, found “no evidence of disturbance.”

One supporter, Dr. Sylvia Earle, evidently hasn’t read Dr. Stewart’s report. Earlier this year, she wrote to the federal court that “seals are being disturbed” by oyster boats. I wrote to her several times and asked to discuss the data. She never replied.

Park supporters have also focused on impacts to eelgrass, but according to the National Academy, eelgrass coverage has doubled in Drakes Estero in recent years. In the environmental impact statement, the focus was on soundscape, but that too was shown to be bogus.

Beginning in 2013, attention shifted to the colonial tunicate Didemnum vexillum, or Dvex. The first thing that should make you suspicious is that park supporters call the organism “marine vomit.” A Google Scholar search shows that serious scientists don’t use such words in their publications. A Google search shows that Amy Trainer of the Environmental Action Committee and her colleagues have used it. It also appears on a website called Street Carnage, under the headline “Marine vomit attacks British coast.” That website has a photo of Clint Eastwood with a rifle pointed at a poster of “Archie Bunker for President” on its home page.

Dvex is an invasive tunicate that colonizes bays and estuaries throughout the temperate waters of the world, from Venice Lagoon to the New Zealand coast. It was observed in Drakes Estero a decade ago, and has been found in San Francisco Bay, Half Moon Bay, Monterey Bay, Elkhorn Slough, Morro Bay, Tomales Bay, Humbolt Bay, Port San Luis and Bodega Bay.

According to the National Academy, Dvex and other “non-indigenous species” are present in Drakes Estero, their “avenue of introduction is mostly unknown” and they “appear to be much less conspicuous than in nearby San Francisco Bay.” (Dvex most likely first washed into Drakes Estero in the tides.) Thus, there is nothing surprising about Dvex in Drakes Estero, given its worldwide distribution and appearance up and down the California coast.

Dvex was also reported on eelgrass at both Martha’s Vineyard and Tomales Bay. In 2011, Dr. Ted Grosholz reported it on eelgrass in Drakes Estero.

But in 2013, as other claims of harm were disproven, park supporters sounded a note of alarm about Dvex. In January and October 2013, Jude Stalker, at the request of EAC, studied Dvex in Drakes Estero. She called it “marine vomit” in a letter to EAC, suggesting advocacy, not science. Ms. Stalker ended by writing “please do not hesitate to contact me with questions.” I did just that, contacting her four times, asking to discuss her data. She never replied.

Ms. Stalker found Dvex on some eelgrass in one arm of Drakes Estero, in essentially the same location where Dr. Grosholz found it in 2011. There is no reason to conclude that anything has changed, or that Drakes Estero is more imperiled by this tunicate than any other bay along the California coast or around the world.

Responding to these alarms, the California Coastal Commission now demands that the oyster farm douse Drakes Estero with bleach and vinegar and wrap the oyster racks with massive amounts of plastic, to try to kill the ubiquitous tunicate. Such impaired judgment is another good reason to openly discuss and debate the facts.

Seven years into this debate, the pattern is clear: I keep offering to discuss the data—a normal part of the scientific process—and people on the other side steadfastly refuse. This, to me, is evidence that they are advocates and not scientists. As the court case moves forward, expect more alarming claims. But don’t expect them to have any more merit than the many previous false, and retracted, claims. Science, after all, is about  debate and discourse, not twisting facts to fit a preconceived ideology. Scientists have three words for such behavior: fear of facts. 

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. 

“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.