You are here

Drakes Bay Oyster Co. Seeks TRO To Keep Point Reyes National Seashore Oyster Farm In Business

Share

Politics stalked the national park system throughout 2007. From snowmobiles in Yellowstone to off-road vehicles in Big Cypress, it seemed natural resources and careful stewardship were trumped too often.

We heard both National Park Service Director Mary Bomar and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne promise that science and careful stewardship would rule the national parks, and yet it seemed those promises fell short.

Not all the news surrounding the parks was negative, though. Congress approved President Bush's hefty funding increase for the parks, the National Park Foundation held a summit to explore partnership and philanthropy in the parks, and the Centennial Challenge was launched.

That said, here's a look at some of the top stories that rippled across the national park system in 2007:

  • Yellowstone snowmobiles. Despite scientific reports that detailed how snow coaches were the best alternative for Yellowstone's environment, wildlife, employees and visitors, park Superintendent Suzanne Lewis approved a plan to allow as many as 540 snowmobiles per day into Yellowstone. That decision, which conservation groups have promised to test in court, could have consequences far beyond Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks as I noted back in November.

    Rick Smith, of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, speaks of decision (1:00)
    Get the Flash Player to heard this audio.

  • Fran Mainella points finger at Interior Department. A year after leaving her job as director of the National Park Service, Fran Mainella told the Traveler that Interior Department officials, not her office, called the shots on allowing snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.

    Fran Mainella talks to the 'Traveler' (4:34)
    Get the Flash Player to see hear the audio.

  • Jet skis. Conservation groups asked the Park Service to reinstate bans against personal watercraft in Gulf Islands and Cape Lookout national seashores as well as Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. If the agency balks, the groups say they'll take it to court over the matter.

  • ORVs in Big Cypress National Preserve. A decision by Big Cypress Superintendent Karen Gustin to reopen 20 miles of off-road vehicle routes was greeted by a lawsuit just before Christmas when a coalition of groups filed a lawsuit to overturn that decision.

  • Katmai Bear Hunt. A groundswell of public outrage greeted the annual hunt of brown bears in Katmai National Preserve. Though hunting technically is allowed in the preserve, the seeming habituation of bears to humans created the impression that the bear hunt was akin to "shooting fish in a barrel" and prompted calls for the Park Service to end the hunt. Watch Video

  • Park Service budget. President Bush proposed, and Congress approved, a hefty funding increase for the National Park Service. True, the $2.39 billion FY08 budget cannibalizes some sections of the agency's budget so its base operations funding will rise $153.4 million. But an increase is an increase.

  • Centennial Challenge. In his fiscal 2008 budget request, President Bush proposed a Centennial Challenge with visions of infusing $3 billion, in a mix of public and private funding, into the park system as the National Park Service moves towards its centennial in 2016. Though controversial on several fronts, and falling short of his 2000 campaign promise to spend $5 billion to wipe out the Park Service's maintenance backlog, the initiative gained congressional approval, though not exactly as the president requested it.

    Kempthorne Announces Centennial Projects; Podcast (10:50)
    Get the Flash Player to see hear the audio.

  • National Park Foundation Leadership Summit on Partnership and Philanthropy. Private philanthropy long has played a crucial role in the construction and health of the national park system. To explore how philanthropy and partnerships can bolster the parks as they head to the National Park Service's centennial in 2016, the National Park Foundation in October convened a summit in Austin, Texas, to examine the possibilities.

    NPS Director Mary Bomar addresses Leadership Summit (1:45)
    Get the Flash Player to hear this audio.

  • The Demise of the National Parks Pass. This much-loved $50 pass, which got its holder into as many parks as they wanted for a year, died on January 1 when the $80 America the Beautiful Pass came to be. However, congressional efforts towards the end of 2007 could spur the return of the National Parks Pass.

  • Climate Change. In a telling report, the Government Accountability Office said the Interior Department has failed to provide the National Park Service with the tools it needs to cope with climate change and its impacts on the national park system.

Comments

Zeb and y_p_w, my response was more focused on imtnbke's position that the Wilderness Act's "purists' numbers are already dwindling and eventually there won't be enough octogenarian white people left to sustain the political base the Wilderness Act needs to continue in its current form."

Slippery slopes do exist, even if you don't want to believe in them. As you might recall, in the uproar over bike racing through Colorado National Monument, a former superintendent of Shenandoah mentioned that the folks behind the Tour de Trump bike race had pointed to instances where parks had allowed bike racing (I believe he referenced the citizen's ride through Colorado Monument) in a bid to gain approval for using the Skyline Drive.


Hi, Kurt —

I think we don't disagree on that much. I would like to see conservation succeed and so would you. It's only that I think the current model needlessly alienates some people and renders many more indifferent. For that reason, it puts conservation at risk in the medium or long run.

If I might address a few of your points . . .

[S]hould we open up the shores of Yellowstone Lake to resorts? Think how
wonderful it would be to have a nice lodge to retreat to on the
Promontory after a day spent water skiing (with a wet suit, of course)

Since I haven't been there, I don't know the answer. It seems that the national parks have a number of luxury hotels as it is. Would it be better to get rid of them? I don't know the answer to that either.

Should the Sawtooth Wilderness in Idaho be cut through with roads so we
can better access the backcountry lakes? Maybe do the same with the
Russian Wilderness in California, only for four-wheeler access? They
deserve recreation in the great outdoors, too, no?

What I'm trying to say is that it is current Wilderness policy that makes this scenario all the more likely someday. If no critical mass of people are aware of what Wilderness offers, it's hard to imagine support for it in 50 years if some national need presents itself for, e.g., resource extraction, in the places you name.

We need these places not only for muscle-powered recreation and the
solitude they offer, but also for the rejuvenation and personal
reflection that can be achieved beyond the reach of today's "civilized"
world.

I agree with that in all respects, except that, having seen the mess that commercial and government pack trains make, I favor human power, not muscle power. But if these places are lost, then no rejuvenation and personal reflection will be achieved in them. It seems to me that the oyster controversy is an excellent warning sign of what may be impending. Places that have been artifically purified of any human endeavor other than maybe walking may soon have no constituency as a result.

Keep in mind that the national parks and Wilderness overall are separate issues, even though about half of the national park territory is also Wilderness. The national park acreage is small and virtually everyone agrees those acres benefit from a high degree of preservation. Wilderness is much larger and more controversial. We're all aware of the gauzy phrase that the national parks are "America's best idea." That may be an overstatement—perhaps the American-invented Internet would rival it for pride of place—but it has to be one of the best ones, because it's been emulated worldwide. No country I know of has emulated our Wilderness policies. That should be instructive to us.


imtnbke:
I agree with that in all respects, except that, having seen the mess that commercial and government pack trains make, I favor human power, not muscle power. But if these places are lost, then no rejuvenation and personal reflection will be achieved in them. It seems to me that the oyster controversy is an excellent warning sign of what may be impending. Places that have been artifically purified of any human endeavor other than maybe walking may soon have no constituency as a result.

Keep in mind that the national parks and Wilderness overall are separate issues, even though about half of the national park territory is also Wilderness. The national park acreage is small and virtually everyone agrees those acres benefit from a high degree of preservation. Wilderness is much larger and more controversial. We're all aware of the gauzy phrase that the national parks are "America's best idea." That may be an overstatement—perhaps the American-invented Internet would rival it for pride of place—but it has to be one of the best ones, because it's been emulated worldwide. No country I know of has emulated our Wilderness policies. That should be instructive to us.

My issue is that in all of this, there seem to be favorites - that the NPS/Interior policy makers and Superintendents pick their winners and losers, and little of it really seems to have anything to do with wilderness ideals.

I also visit our designated wilderness areas and see the tons of exceptions that have been carved out over the years in fully designated wilderness as well as areas that remain potential wilderness at the decision of those policy makers I mention. I know that the dams and fire roads were grandfathered in. I've climbed up and down the Half Dome cables. I also remember that huge outhouse at Little Yosemite Valley. I'm wondering how that fits into wilderness ideals. I mention these exceptions because it seems that somehow someone managed to find a middle ground rather than an absolute.

The issue I have is that Kurt has taken an editorial position that the oyster farm needs to go because it was always slated for that as potential wilderness. In the meanwhile, he's written glowing articles encouraging people to visit the Yosemite High Sierra Camps. Those articles don't mention their potential wilderness status, their maintenance backlog, the various "nonconforming uses", the commercial pack trains that supply the camps, the helicopters brought in to service the waste disposal, etc.

And there will be no way Drakes Estero will be free from serious human derived impacts (beyond the human propelled boating) until they remove those ranches and stop allowing recreational clam digging on the shoreline. It might technically be a wilderness because those thing happen just outside some dotted lines on a map, but the effect is that it's hardly a wilderness with unregulated vehicle noise on Sir Francis Drake Blvd and all those activities outside Drakes Estero mucking things up.

It's also going to be interesting what happens to the oyster farm location. I've read some say this is a victory for kayakers. It won't be if NPS decides to stop maintaining the road. I wouldn't be surprised if making it harder for kayakers to access Drake Estero wasn't part of the plan all along.

Anyone who has followed my history here knows I'm not a lassez-faire anti-government crusader. I question why anyone needs to drive on a beach. Although I own a couple of mountain bikes, I'm actually quite OK that NPS has few areas where they're allowed. I have no issues with closures when they serve to protect threatened or endangered species. I've been accused of all sorts of things, including being a paid shill for the oyster farm (never even met Kevin Lunny) or an anti-government type.

I know some people thought of the oyster farm as some decrepit looking buildings mostly Hispanic workers. Frankly - that's what a real oyster operation looks like.
Point Reyes NS is extremely special to me. With the exit of the oyster farm, it's going to be a little bit less special.


I'd be the first to agree that the National Park System is frought with exceptions to this and that, and that superintendents in one park will come down on an issue differently from those in another.

It also can't be overlooked that Congress holds large sway in many park decisions. The reason there's no officially designated wilderness in Glacier or Yellowstone national parks, just to name two iconic parks that lack designated wilderness, is due to the failure of the congressional delegations from Montana and Wyoming to pen wilderness legislation.

As to where the Traveler stands on the Drakes Bay Oyster Co., we have tried to stick to citing the existing wilderness legislation dating to 1976, and the interpretations that have descended from it. Any review of our stories will turn up articles critical of both the NPS and the oyster farm, as well as articles that might be interpreted as favorable to both.

As to the High Sierra Camps in Yosemite, I'm not sure we've ever written "glowingly" of them, as we've never stayed in them. That said, perhaps a look at those operations and where they lie in context to wilderness would be worth the time investment. But is anyone pushing to have them removed? That's an angle that would justify the time.

Without checking, if memory serves me well I believe the Traveler did question the use of a helicopter for hauling building materials to a cabin site within designated wilderness in Sequoia NP, and also perhaps Katmai.

The bottom line is that there are 398 units in the park system, and only one full-time writer/editor at the Traveler. Plus, there is a timely news element to what's ongoing at Drakes Estero, so naturally our editorial calendar will include more items tied to that than to the High Sierra Camps.


You'e done incredibly well, Kurt! I mean seriously, continually to bring different facets of the arguments from very knowledgable and passionate contributors. Personally, I hope the conversation results eventually in something real and not just ideology played out that neuters the real value to the culture. Rock On, Kurt:)!


Absolutely there are people who are asking to have the High Sierra Camps removed. Here are the public comments on the Vogelsang HSC backcountry utilities maintenance project:

http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/VBCU_30-36.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/VBCU_49-64.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/VBCU_65-66.pdf

I'd include all of them, but several links are broken. In particular, comment 53 is from Yvon Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia, Inc. and a well known wilderness advocate. I haven't had a chance to go over all the comments, but they seem to be overwhelmingly against the HSCs. Most call for at least no going through with an expensive maintenance project, while others call for the HSCs to be completely removed.

I'd buy that you've got no editorial position per se if you didn't publish Neal Desai's piece on why they oyster farm must go without a counterpoint piece. I'm sure you could have gotten at least one of Peter Gleick, Pete McCloskey, Corey Goodman, etc to write a piece if you'd just asked.


While often disagreeing, I certainly enjoy and appreciate the NPT.


I second that.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.