Nature vs. Commerce in National Parks

READERS COMMENTS

While I want to see the oyster farm continue, I think in many ways it more than just about the science. It's about the ideal of "wilderness". I believe there are some people who are simply offended that there's a commercial enterprise holding up what could be fully designated wilderness status for Drakes Estero.

I was under the impression that the High Sierra Camps in Yosemite were in fully designated wilderness, but found out that they are (like Drakes Estero) carved out in the wilderness plan as "potential wilderness". There are a lot of areas which are "potential wilderness" where the NPS hasn't set any timetable to convert to fully designated wilderness. Little Yosemite Valley (with the large outhouse) is likely potential wilderness. I mentioned the High Sierra Camps. This is a reality and I believe that the NPS simply has a differing interpretation of what it can and can't do regarding potential wilderness and lease extensions.
Posted: Nov 10, 2009 y_p_w

I decided to go to the farm this weekend after reading about all of the drama in the paper. I must say that the farm is great! Excellent staff, oysters and beef! I myself am a molecular biologist and I know that it takes years and MULTIPLE research studies before you can reach an adequate conclusion. The crazy extreme liberal Californians, who think they know everything there is to know about science but really have no idea, need to take it down a notch. Also, park services needs to re-evaluate their scientific data. If it is at all flawed, shame on them for coming to such a brass conclusion on limited data. After reading both sides of the story and seeing the farm firsthand, it seems like this small farm is doing very little harm on the Pt. Reyes area. More harm is done by the "tourons" who don't pick up their trash and leave piles of horse__ all over the trails.
Posted: Nov 09, 2009 LK

The whole issue of leases at Point Reyes is rather complicated. Apparently the cattle/dairy leases are renewed at regular intervals (I think 5 years) but the park superintendent has no problem renewing them since dairy/cattle raising is specifically noted in the establishing legislation. I've read about at least one of the dairy farms there being on tough times and it's not sure what would happen if they went out of business since the leases require that they be used for raising cows.

I haven't actually heard of Hog Island using DBOC oysters when they couldn't harvest. I thought they would just shut down their wholesale/retail operation until they could harvest again. Their website usually notes when they can ship. Their oyster bars definitely don't shut down. Even at times when they're still harvesting their own, I've seen that they've had oysters shipped from Washington or Canada on their menu. Once I went for their happy hour and had some of the smallest oysters I've ever seen. Then we noticed they started shucking these bigger oysters and asked about them. Those were Snow Creek oysters (from Washington) being sold for happy hour since they were running out of their x-small Hog Island Sweetwater.

I'd think the bigger issue would be if DBOC is gone, then the demand would likely be made up from shipping oysters from Washington or Canada. I don't believe the Tomales Bay farms could make up that demand since they're already shipping about as much as they can produce.

The biggest problem with the oyster farm lease (reservation of use) was that it was signed before the 1976 Point Reyes Wilderness Act. The Interior Dept claimed that they're locked into removing the farm even though the 1972 lease has a renewal clause. Apparently only an act of Congress was going to change that and Senator Feinstein made that happen.

The biggest obstacle now for the oyster farm is who's going to make the final determination. Director Jarvis probably already has his mind made up, so if Secretary Salazar delegates it to the NPS, I'd think we know what happens. A previous version of the amendment on the oyster farm specifically required that the least be renewed for a ten year term.
Posted: Nov 04, 2009 y_p_w

Too bad "Tax Payer" won't identify him (or her) self. Kind of cowardly, I'd say. But as to his/her contention that the Drakes Bay Oyster can be moved to Tomales Bay -- won't happen. The oyster farms currently in Tomales (e.g., Hog Island, Tomales Bay) are prohibited from harvesting for up to 100 days a year, typically following rains that wash effluent (cow poop, fertilizer, oil from roads, etc.) into the bay, making the oysters unfit for consumption. At those times, where do such outfits as Hog Island get their oysters? Yup, Drakes Bay Oysters. They don't say that, of course, but it's true. Ask 'em. Drakes Bay Oysters produces approximately 40% of the state's oysters, and there's no way they'd be able to generate that sort of harvest in Tomales Bay -- it's too small and doesn't produce the nutrients that Drakes Estero does. As to the contention that historical family farmers (whether or agricultural or aquacultural) in the Point Reyes National Seashore" were required to give up their leases after 40 years, it just ain't so. None of the dairy farms and cattle ranches are required to vacate their leases. Why should the oyster farm? "Tax Payer," whoever you are, I suggest you inform yourself before you spout off.
Posted: Nov 04, 2009 Bill Hays

I'd just note that the whole concept of "wilderness" seems to be one that's primarily on paper. With the exception of the oyster farm and its use of motorized boating, the NPS manages the area as "de facto" wilderness. There are certainly human activities allowed in "full wilderness". Kayaking, hiking, and (sometimes even) grazing are allowed in full Congressionally designated wilderness areas. Just check a map of the Sierra Nevada east of Yosemite and you'll see a variety of designated wilderness areas that have borders formed by roads or where they've carved out sections that aren't in the wilderness boundary - such as Florence Lake or Mono Hot Springs.

And for what it's worth, I'm a strong proponent for keeping the oyster farm.
Posted: Nov 03, 2009 y_p_w

Actually - the NPS purchased the farm in 1972, which was before the Point Reyes Wilderness Act. The written reservation of use actually included a renewal clause. So at the time of the purchase the farm and Drakes Estero weren't necessarily destined to be returned to "pristine condition". I've studied the maps of the wilderness plan and apparently the land that the oyster farm's shore operations sits on aren't part of the "potential wilderness". The whole thing gets really complex when you're talking about "wilderness", "potential wilderness", land, water, etc. The State of California never told Lunny that they weren't renewing any permits. California Fish & Game has the rights for fishing and shellfish and have agreed in principle to extend the farm's shellfish permit to 2029. However - the extension is apparently contingent on the farm securing an extension to the reservation of use they need for the shore operations. It's kind of a complex web they've got with shore operations needed to maintain the permit for shellfish farming/harvesting, and where the NPS can't declare the waters as "full wilderness" unless the oyster farm ceases its operations. Even if the oyster farm is gone, I've heard some speculation that unless the State of California releases its mineral/water bottom rights to Drakes Estero (not likely) that the waters can't be declared full wilderness. There are a bunch of different "non-conforming" uses that may prevent it from being declared full wilderness.
Posted: Nov 03, 2009 y_p_w

First, it's Kevin Lunny who owns Drakes Bay Oysters Co. (not "Ken" Lunny, as you write). Accuracy is important, don't you agree? As to wilderness, what's the definition? I think we'd all agree that natural, untrammeled areas uninfluenced by humans can indeed be wilderness, and should be protected. But how can there be wilderness in a small estuary surrounded by cattle and working farms, paved roads and steady auto traffic, hikers, and hosting kayakers and an oyster farm that's been there for 70 years? What would wilderness look like in such a spot? How would we know when we achieved it? Would the auto traffic and working ranches that surround the estero have to go away? What would happen to the quality of the water without the oysters, which, as filter feeders, clean Drakes Estero of algae and other plankton that would otherwise increase the water's turbidity. And then there's the food value of oysters, a natural source of protein that doesn't require the use of fertilizer, pesticides and other chemicals found in industrial food production. The working family farms (including the oyster farm) in the Point Reyes National Seashore, which predate the park and have maintained long-term leases since the Park's establishment, aren't in the same category of "commerce" as the agribusiness that dominates much of California's Central Valley, for example. There is little to correlate the two forms of "commerce." There is no wilderness to protect in Drakes Estero, but there is a beneficial, historical use that should be preserved. Save Drakes Bay Oyster Co.
Posted: Nov 03, 2009 Bill Hays

Lunnys have only owned the oyster company for a few (maybe five) years. Seems odd that a new company can claim precedence. The population of San Francisco Bay area and California are expanding so there is need for more wilderness areas, not less.
Posted: Nov 03, 2009 John

It seems important to note that the NPS purchased the land from the business owner (Johnson) nearly 40 years ago. As part of the agreement, the owner was allowed a 40 reservation of use to continue operating the farm. The agreement was simple: The owner gets money, the owner gets to operate farm for roughly the remainder of his life, the public eventually gets the land that it paid for.
Kevin Lunny bought the farm in 2005. He was notified in writing from the State and Federal governement that the permit to operate the oyster farm was set to expire. He was told going into the purchase that the permit was going to expire in 2012. Now he wants a new deal, but one that you, the tax payer, have already paid for.
The Federal government has bought and paid for this oyster farm. To give Kevin Lunny exclusive priviledges to operate a commercial business in a National Park is quite unreasonable considering the history.
Also, in 1976, Congress passed legislation establishing much of the area around the farm as Wildnerness. Also, the NPS purchased the land nearly 40 years in hopes of returning Drakes Estero back to its original, pristine condition for EVERYONE to enjoy and benefit from. Not just one business owner.
Lunny knew what he was getting when he purchased the reservation of use in 2005. He should not be rewarded because he was able to hire a lobbyist and gain access to Feinstein.
Folks, the public owns this land, not Lunny. The business has enjoyed a wonderful deal for nearly 40 years. Now it's time to complete the agreement and return it to everyone. The oyster farm can be moved to Tomales Bay.
Posted: Nov 03, 2009 Tax Payer

IMO if the business was there first they have more rights than a business that came after. The business and the national park should work together to protect the environment that supports them both.
Posted: Nov 03, 2009 Chris Jennings

ADD A COMMENT