An oyster company battling to keep farming oysters in a wilderness area of Point Reyes National Seashore wants the entire 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hear its case against the National Park Service.
Drakes Bay Oyster Co. announced its intention not to back down Wednesday after a three-judge panel of the appellate court denied its request to be allowed to continue operations in Drakes Estero pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed against the Park Service.
“After reading the Court’s decision -- and especially the dissent from Judge (Paul J.) Watford -- we are more convinced than ever that we will prevail based on the merits of our case,” said Drakes Bay owner Kevin Lunny.
At issue is the company's desire to remain in Drakes Estero at the national seashore. When Drakes Bay bought out the farm's previous owners in 2005, the existing lease for the operation ran through November 2012. While Mr. Lunny was optimistic he could obtain a lease renewal from the Park Service, last November then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declined that request, saying Congress long had intended for the estero to become part of the Philip Burton Wilderness.
The oyster company's lawyers sued the Park Service over that decision, arguing that the Interior secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious, and violated both the federal government's Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
An agreement reached between the oyster company and the U.S. Justice Department allowed it to continue operations through March 15 while the company sought an injunction against the Park Service.
In February, a U.S. District Court judge refused to issue the order and Mr. Lunny's attorneys then asked the 9th Circuit to grant the injunction. On Tuesday, in a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel from the appellate court also refused to grant the request.
"Drakes Bay’s disagreement with the value judgments made by the Secretary is not a legitimate basis on which to set aside the decision. Once we determine, as we have, that the Secretary did not violate any statutory mandate, it is not our province to intercede in his discretionary decision. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction," read part of the majority opinion.
Mr. Lunny, however, was clinging to the hope that a full court review of the matter would result in a ruling in line with Judge Watford's opinion that "no conflicting laws prevented the Secretary from issuing a permit to Drakes Bay. Continued operation of the oyster farm is fully consistent with the Wilderness Act, and the farm’s existence is therefore not an “obstacle” to converting Drakes Estero to wilderness status as directed by the Point Reyes Wilderness Act. Instead, it was the Interior Department’s misinterpretation of the Point Reyes Wilderness Act that proved to be the 'legal sticking point' here."
In announcing his intent to pursue relief from the full 9th Circuit Court, Mr. Lunny implied that his case had national significance.
“With the support of thousands of environmentalists, community members and elected leaders around the nation, we will continue to fight for what’s right and remain committed to succeeding in our fight to remain open and serve our community,” he said in prepared comments. “Although we strongly disagree with the panel’s decision, we remain steadfast in our opinion that we can prevail based on the merits of our case."
Comments
Just curious.
30-40% increase in oyster cost state-wide. According to "it has been reported".
Do we have a better source?
Rick - If he does - would it make a difference? Unlikely, you would still be against it. The "facts" really don't matter to you.
Kurt, interesting discussion, on the Yosemite High Sierra Camps, I think they are "proposed wilderness additions". The thinking was that if the camps were closed (highly unlikely at this time), the language of the act allowed these areas to revert to wilderness status. Probably emotion on my part, but I do support the closing of the Oyster Farm. this will be the first "marine wilderness" on the California coast. I do see the arguments against the closing, however when I was born in 1940, California had a population of 6 million,now it is 37 million and growing. I do think it is important to set these areas aside. for wild places, so to speak. could be wrong, but the history of the conservation movement is a tremendous legacy for all of us.
Rick B., here are a couple of articles, alhough they mention a 40% loss in California oyster production, not the precise price increase figure I recalled hearing:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22620185/drakes-bay-closure-could-increase...
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Farm-sold-40-percent-of-state-s-oy...
Kurt, I'd say people working on the land in harmony with it is easily as holistic as the idea of "humans in wilderness without today's modern mechanical trappings," who, if any exist, would be there to appreciate the sights and leave after a few days. But I don't know of many humans in wilderness operating that way. Most I've seen, if not all, are loaded down with the same gear I and/or my backpacking partner were in the Wind River Mountains of Wyoming three weeks ago. Ultralight stove with isobutane gas, personal locator beacon, ultralight tent, Steripen for water sterilization, Swiss army knife, highly engineered boots, freeze-dried food, hiking poles with shocks (arguably a form of prohibited mechanical transport), etc. It seems to me that Wilderness travel these days means either backpacking with products that represent the acme of engineering or being carted around on someone else's horse or mule and paying a lot of money for that privilege. John Muir and his wool blankets disappeared long ago.
Thanks, imtnbike. That's why I asked. "It has been reported" isn't very precise, and as you state, the two articles you cite don't back up the original comment.
Personally, I have no horse in this race, other than being a fan of the NPS in general. I just hate logical fallicies in rhetorical back-and-forths.
Imtnbke, good point, you are right, much very hi-tech equipment on the wilderness trails these days. On a recent backpack I met a gentleman doing the Pacific Crest Trail that had a mini solar panel on his ballcap. Interesting guy, he told me he was able to keep his smart phone charged and it allowed him to use all the features, google maps, etc. He also found it useful as he was able to call ahead for room reservations, etc, when he sidetracked for resupply. His pack, without any equipment loaded, weighed only 13 ozs. Pretty amazing.
imtnbike, those items you mention, interestingly, are so we can have an even lighter impact on the wilderness landscape. Stoves so we don't chop down trees and leave fire rings full of charred wood, ultralight tents that take up a lighter footprint than the old canvas wall tents, freeze-dried foods that don't require a lot of cooking with its inherent scraps and morsels of food that gets scraped from pots and pans and dumped in the woods, etc.
So yes, in one hand it's not just you and a wool blanket, but those items make our travels lighter on the landscape, no? And sleeping on the ground is still sleeping on the ground, whether you have a wool blanket or a sleeping bag;-)
Hi, Kurt — I know that. I just hope people don't unduly romanticize themselves while they're out there comforted by some of the most advanced equipment civilization has to offer. While I was in the Wind River Mountains, I discovered I had cell phone reception at a high point, and by making a couple of brief phone calls rather delighted in reminding myself and anyone who might happen to wander by that we are all of us tightly tethered to civilization while out in the wild.
Rick, thanks for your reply. Even I had managed to relocate the 30% price increase reference I recalled, I wouldn't put too much stock in it, because the laws of economics dictate that increased profit potential would draw other producers and the price would drop over time. I put more reliance on the 40% production drop reports, since California's coast is so heavily regulated that I would question where another oyster farm could open between Oregon and Mexico. By the way, I haven't seen anything in this thread that strikes me as containing a logical fallacy. Disagreements, yes, but bad reasoning, no.