Antiplanner readers know that I have no sympathy for Clive Bundy, who has been trespassing on federal lands for two decades and somehow made people feel like he was the victim. Perhaps it seems strange, then, that I have a lot more sympathy for the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, whose operations in California’s Point Reyes National Seashore the National Park Service is trying to shut down.
Incompatible use? As long as the oyster company could avoid using motorized equipment in the part of the bay designated wilderness, oyster growing should be compatible with wilderness. Flickr photo by Earthworm.
At first glance, the facts are similar. Both Bundy and Drakes Bay
used public lands or waters for decades, and were allowed to continue to use those resources after the BLM took over the former and the Park Service took over the latter. Then Congress passed laws–the Endangered Species Act in Bundy’s case and a wilderness law covering the oyster farm–that restricted the use of those resources.
In response to the Endangered Species Act, the BLM reduced the number of cattle Bundy could graze on federal lands. Bundy nevertheless continued grazing his previous allotment; the only thing he changed was that he stopped paying for it. After two decades of frustration, this led to the confrontation that took place last April.
You don’t buy viagra without consultation have to worry about anything because your security is guaranteed. By and large, it is additionally indicated as Phosphodiesterase sort 5 inhibitors component which recovers the blood stream toward penile range and ends best prices for cialis the issue of weakness in men. When the blood vessels of the mucous membrane dilate or canadian cialis pharmacy even break up, the hematuria will appear. This problem can interfere in your sexual life because all woman wants is sildenafil cheapest stronger, harder erection to make her shout each and every time with your enormous penis Almost the best edge you’re going to get from getting natural enlargement treatment. In response to the wilderness law, the Park Service decided that oyster farming was not a proper wilderness use. Here’s a difference between the two cases: while cattle conflict with the desert tortoise, neither cattle grazing nor oyster farming necessarily conflict with a wilderness designation. Just as many ranchers run their cattle through designated wilderness areas (without using motorized vehicles), Drakes Bay could have continued to grow oysters in a wilderness area so long as it didn’t use motor boats to access them. Yet the Department of the Interior announced in 2007 that it would not renew Drakes Bay’s permit, which expired in 2012, due to the new wilderness law.
The other big difference between cattle grazing and oyster growing is that one almost inevitably has serious impacts on soils, vegetation, and wildlife, while the other can only succeed if water quality is kept as high as possible. Thus, the environmental impacts of oyster growing may actually be positive as the growers have a strong incentive to keep others from polluting the waters. Given how poorly the Park Service has managed other ecosystems, I wouldn’t be surprised if the eviction of the oyster company from the estuary results in a reduction of environmental quality.
In order to justify the decision to deny the permit, Park Service personnel fabricated claims that the oyster growers were harming harbor seals and doing other damage to the estuary. Looking at the claims, an independent panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences agreed that Park Service personnel had “selectively presented information and misrepresented facts” to justify denial of the permit.
Unfortunately, the law doesn’t require the Park Service to base its decisions on sound science. It can make up anything it wants, say the courts, and its decision to deny the permit is final.
Another difference between Bundy and Drakes Bay is that cattle ranching in Nevada is a pretty marginal operation. I don’t believe the BLM abused its power when it reduced Bundy’s allotment in order to protect the desert tortoise, especially since other ranchers who were affected by the tortoise were compensated by the Nature Conservancy. Oyster growing is not marginal at all.
Drakes Bay’s last chance is to convince Congress to overrule the Park Service. Since the company has Senator Diane Feinstein on its side, that could happen. But it should not be necessary. The Park Service abused its power in fabricating evidence to justify denying the permit, and, for me at least, it is this abuse of power that makes the biggest difference between the two cases.
At the very least, scientists would have a control group to monitor Bay pollution and ocean acidification & associated impacts.
Randal and I agree two days in a row! Those on the San Andreas fault better buckle up!
DS
While a case could be made that oyster farming in general might be compatible with a wilderness area, Drake’s Bay Oyster Company has never shown any interest in being a good steward of the environment. The company has a long record of allowing plastics to pollute the shoreline, invasive species to proliferate in the Estero, and numerous other violations of the California Coastal Act. Their continual bad behavior and refusal to comply with even the most basic environmental safeguards makes it easy to evict them without hesitation.
“Park Service personnel had “selectively presented information and misrepresented facts”
It is s federal crime to give false information to a federal investigator – unless of course, you are a federal employee. Not only no punishment, but they will keep getting paid by taxpayers, and probably get a promotion for doing this.
I think the “scientific” process was probably very flawed, but I see that is just a smokescreen anyway. If there is a Democratic president, then they will lose. If there was a Republican president, then they would get a permit extension. It really is just that political.
The “impact on seals” is a joke. Everything has an impact above zero, but it takes some judgment to decide if the impact actually reduces the population by 1 or 2 seals, and even then, does that matter in ubiquitous harbor seals.
Generally, however, I think this is a good way to handle users of recently protected land who are having a minimal impact. They should be given a long term permit so that they can recoup their sunk costs and a generation half invested in that life can finish their working life doing it. With a forty year lease, the newer generation know that is a limited life and can adjust their life accordingly.
Silly me for not checking Randal’s “facts”.
The original owner sold that land to the Park Service in 1972 and in addition took out a 40-year lease. He knew what was coming.
Then the current owners bought in the mid-oughts, knowing full well the lease was up in several years.
Now, the property owner has a contract and has decided to not renew the lease. The property owner is enforcing their contract and has fully disclosed the contract terms to the lessee. The property owner is acting as they see fit.
Harbor seals, profits, and the environmental study are secondary to the terms of the lease. Even though DBOC’s lawyer’s are paid by the deepest pockets around (right, Randal?), even good lawyers cannot overcome is simple matter of the property owner choosing what to do with their land and not bowing to outside pressure.
DS
But, Dan, Dan!
You’re forgetting that this property owner is different! It’s the “gummit” so it’s a completely different set of rules that apply at least according to most of the crowd who spews their vit…, er, post here.
Funny, I always thought it was self evident that government is a unique kind of institution that operates under different ground rules from others.
Funny, I always thought it was self evident that government is a unique kind of institution that operates under different ground rules from others.
That’s why it attracts statist parasites like Dan & msetty.
This guy should get a medal. Oysters are colloidal filters. Back then the entire Chesapeake bay water volume could be filtered by the oyster population in a few days, Today it takes an entire year. The Oyster harvest is 1% what it used to be.
I don’t need to say anything more except that morons like Metrosucky prove my previous point.
Secretary Salazar’s decision to not renew the permit wasn’t a tough one. In 1976, Congress passed a law stating that the area including the oyster farm “shall . . . be designated wilderness” by “publication in the Federal Register of a notice by the Secretary of the Interior that all uses thereon prohibited by the Wilderness Act . . . have ceased.” When the oyster farmer’s permit expired, Salazar simply followed Congress’ stated intent by not renewing the permit, allowing the area to be administered under the Wilderness Act, which bars “commercial enterprise.”
One can argue with the Wilderness Act and its potpourri of political accommodations for livestock grazing and vested mineral rights, but the law is the law. And the law was followed in this instance.
Can someone tell me again why any level of government is permitted to own land?
High time the peasants rebelled against their feudal masters, the civil servants, and seized the land from them. Putting a few to the sword couldn’t hurt either. Pour encourager les autres.
Thinking of you, Metrosucky:
http://dangerandplaycom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/i-touch-myself.png.
The law as enacted provides:
Prior to the expiration on November 30, 2012 of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s Reservation of Use and Occupancy and associated special use permit (“existing authorization”) within Drakes Estero at Point Reyes National Seashore, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to issue a special use permit with the same terms and conditions as the existing authorization, except as provided herein, for a period of 10 years from November 30, 2012. Provided, That such extended authorization is subject to annual payments to the United States based on the fair market value of the use of the Federal property for the duration of such renewal. The Secretary shall take into consideration recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences [“NAS”] Report pertaining to shellfish mariculture in Point Reyes National Seashore before modifying any terms and conditions of the extended authorization.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to have any application to any location other than Point Reyes National Seashore; nor shall anything in this section be cited as precedent for management of any potential wilderness outside the Seashore.
123 Stat. at 2932