The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked the National Park Service from forcing an oyster farm out of Point Reyes National Seashore and scheduled a hearing on the dispute for May.
In a terse order filed Monday, the appellate court granted the request for an emergency injunction from the Drakes Bay Oyster Co., whose lease to operate in the national seashore's waters expired in November. The appellate court was asked to consider the motion after a lower court denied the same request.
"Appellants’ emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal is granted, because there are serious legal questions and the balance of hardships tips sharply in appellants’ favor," the order read.
On February 4, a U.S. District Court judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order that would have allowed the oyster farm to continue operations in Drakes Estero while its owner, Kevin Lunny, pursued a lawsuit against the federal government.
In seeking the TRO, the company's lawyers argued that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar broke the Administrative Procedures Act and violated the National Environmental Policy Act when he decided last November not to extend the lease for 10 years. In denying the lease extension, the Interior secretary cited the value of wilderness and congressional intent. On the very next day, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis declared the estero part of the Philip Burton Wilderness at the Seashore, effective December 4.
In her ruling, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers held that she had no jurisdiction to rule on whether the Interior secretary broke the APA, and even if she did, Mr. Lunny did not prove that Secretary Salazar acted arbitrary or capricious, or abused his discretion, in his decision.
Drakes Bay Oyster Co. also is facing a cease-and-desist order handed it by the California Coastal Commission last month. That order cited unpermitted operations in the seashore's waters by the oyster company, land alterations, debris from the farming operations, violations of previous cease-and-desist orders, and company boats operating in waters that were supposed to be closed to traffic due to harbor seal pupping.
Comments
There will be mistakes made in any reduction of funding of the government. Our history is replete with them. I'm willing to take the chance because there is really no other option.
Regarding the difference of opinion between people in the role of government and that people can disagree while remaining within the constitutional framework. Sure, that's how we develop policies and priorities... but... EC is correct. There is a substantial element, perhaps a dominating element within the Democrat party that is ready and willing to set certain elements of the constitution aside in order to achieve their goals. The second and fourth amendments are currently under attack. The President's accelerated use of executive orders to achieve his agenda in spite of the United States Congress are two specific examples. There are many others as well, like recess appointments of staff, subsequently struck down (repeatedly) by the courts.
We're pretty far afield from oysters here and I expect Kurt is wondering how far we should go. I would like to say that I really appreciate the dialogue on this thread and the fact that all of us have been able to contain our partisan instincts as we each argue our case....
Reminds me of your reading of the Second Amendment in other threads--the commas you skip over and your rearranging of its clauses.
I don't think the Second and Fourth Amendments are "under attack," Mike. In any case, I second you final paragraph.
Did not "skip" or rearrange anything. The words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" aren't contigent on your interpretation of "militia". In fact they aren't contingent on anything.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is clearly not the subject of "shall not be infringed." Unless you skip over the comma.
But I think we're confirming Mike's sense that we're moving off topic.
What????? Then what is the subject? of "shall not be infringed"?
Oh, and by the way, the text ratified by the states and authenticated by TJ as Secretary of State, has no comma.
Finally, tell us what enumerated power in the Constitution gives the fed government the right to regulate arms in the first place irrespective of the Second amendment?
And yes, I know it is off topic, (and I apologize Kurt) but you brought it up and I can't let it go unchallenged.
We are moving off topic in a way but the underlying tones presented through this thread have everything to do with the Drakes Bay Oyster Issue and many others, I believe.
Been a good topic and I appreciate this forum and the posters. Don't believe the topic has ended.
Heading to the Backcountry now. Have a good day everyone:).
So let's get back on topic and stay away from discussing the 2nd or 4th amendments. They're not in play here.
With that said, when is a contract a contract, and when is it not?
To those who believe the NPS/DOI should reverse course and extend the oyster company's lease, what would you say if this involved private land that you owned, and which in good faith you had signed a contract with your lessee giving them X number of years to operate on your land, but after that, they had to move. But instead of your lessee honoring the terms that they agreed to, they went to court to fight the terms of the contract.
Or, if you were a businessman, would you purchase a company knowing that in seven years the lease to the land necessary for your operation to continue was going to expire? And even if there was an extremely remote possibility to renew that lease, would you invest in that remote possibility?