Editor's note: This updates with comments from Drakes Bay Oyster Co. owner Kevin Lunny.
An adverse ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, while disappointing, does not automatically signal the end of oyster farming at Point Reyes National Seashore, according to the owner of Drakes Bay Oyster Co.
Kevin Lunny said Monday afternoon that he planned to sit down with his attorneys to review the decision by the Supreme Court not to take up his fight against the Interior Department to remain in business at the national seashore's Drakes Estero. One option, he said, would be to return to a lower court to pursue the gist of his lawsuit against the Interior Department; the lower court rulings that have gone against Drakes Bay so far focused around Mr. Lunny's request for a temporary restraining order to allow him to continue farming oysters while pursuing that lawsuit.
“While we had hoped the Supreme Court would grant our cert petition requesting a review of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, our federal case against the government now returns to the District Court, where we will be making decisions over the next few weeks about how to proceed," he said in a prepared statement.
"We do plan to continue to fight for what's right here. To fight for our employees, to try to protect a third of the state's shellfish production that comes form Drakes Bay. We believe we're correct and we believe we're fighting for all the right reasons," he said later at a press conference. "We see this fight is not really just for the oyster farm. If we see this kind of treatment be allowed, and not stopped, we fear that there could be consequences" for other agricultural operations on public lands.
While last year there had been an effort in Congress to legislate a 10-year extension of the oyster company's lease, on Monday the Drakes Bay owner didn't know if that remained a possibility.
The Supreme Court on Monday didn't comment when it rejected the petition from Drakes Bay Oyster Co. to review its case. In its petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, the company's lawyers had raised three questions:
* Whether federal courts lack jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to review an agency action that is arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion when the statute authorizing the action does not impose specific requirements governing the exercise of discretion.
* Whether federal agencies can evade review of their actions under the National Environmental Policy Act by designating their actions as "conservation efforts" when the records shows that the action will cause significant adverse environmental effects.
* Whether an agency commits prejudicial error when it makes false statements in an environmental impact statement, and then asserts that it would have made the same decision even if the false statements had been corrected.
In January the judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reconsider a ruling by a three-judge panel of that court. In that ruling in September 2013, the 2-1 majority ruling held that, "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."
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 had been optimistic he could obtain a lease renewal from the National Park Service, then-Interior Secretary Salazar declined that request in November 2012, saying Congress long had intended for Drakes Estero where the oyster farm was based to become part of the Philip Burton Wilderness.
As soon as Mr. Salazar rendered his decision, the National Park Service officially designated the estero as wilderness, something envisioned when the Point Reyes National Seashore Wilderness Act was passed in 1976. The wilderness legislation that set aside 25,370 acres of the national seashore as wilderness cited another 8,003 acres encompassing the estero that would be "essentially managed as wilderness, to the extent possible, with efforts to steadily continue to remove all obstacles to the eventual conversion of these lands and waters to wilderness status" -- and the oyster operation was seen as being incompatible with such a designation.
Drakes Bay's lawyers sued over Mr. Salazar's decision, arguing that it was arbitrary and capricious and violated both the federal government's Administrative Procedures Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Whether Monday's decision marks the end of Drakes Bay Oyster Co. remains to be seen, as there have been efforts in Congress to legislate an extension to the company's lease at Point Reyes.
Mr. Lunny said it was also unclear Monday how soon the National Park Service might move to shut down his oyster farm.
Comments
I think that's a bit of a strawmwan, imtnbke. I'm not sure anyone, or at least many, make[s] this argument. There's quite a bit of space between Eden and the industrial to designate/debate as wilderness--i.e. the earlier comment about whether an historic structure should remain within a wilderness designation.
I'm pleased with this decision and glad that the dispute went through the legal process.
Imtnbike, you almost nailed it when you wrote: "So if your mental image of us is one of tearing up roots and rocks for a thrill, it's inaccurate for 99% of us—although I couldn't blame you for having that image, when one looks at the woeful advertising campaigns that the mountain bike industry foolishly runs, shooting itself in the proverbial foot with each rip-dominate-thrash print ad it runs."
Based on personal experience around here, though, I'd have to say that your 99% number is really about 50%. On our trails, at least half of the riders are exactly out to tear up roots and rocks and other bikers and hikers for thrills.
The only way for the mountain biking community (and the ATV community, too) to gain greater respect from the rest of us will be to police the miscreants and clean up the image of your sport.
(Sorry -- off topic, I know. But . . . . )
Lee, I agree with you. I have become more of a purist over the course of the last decade, just from experiencing a variety of different landscapes. Anymore, I just go to wilderness.net, pull up the maps, and if it shows a wilderness boundary in a place i've never visited before, ill spend my time there and skip the non-wilderness areas. Life's too short to waste it in mountain biker/ATV terrain, OR places like Cape Hatteras : ) . Sure, you miss a lot of america that way, but to each their own.
I'll post my comments on a mountain bike thread in regard to that sport. As far as wilderness finally being established in Drakes Estuary, I think it's a good thing. It's been a decade since I was last in Point Reyes, so it's been a while, but I do remember it having at least a moderately wild character to it compared to a lot of areas around the bay area. If they can rewild even a small section of it by removing all the human made oyster beds and allow nature to reclaim it in the next few decades (and yes it will), then that's not a bad thing. Considering this area is in a very heavily populated area of the planet, then it's amazing it even exists at even this semi-wild state to begin with. Is it pristine? No. But over time it could be much better. Agriculture and practices like oyster farming tend to create monocultures, in areas that could support a much more diverse biodiversity.
Shenandoah and the Smokies are an example of recovery. Many areas were clear-cut, or had farms on them. Today, you wouldn't even notice unless you have a trained eye. In another hundred years, these forests will be beyond secondary secessional status, and be back into old growth status if humans can quit introducing non-native insects, and keep pollution and some other threats at bay.
I hiked 7 miles of shared use trail in the National Forest behind my home yesterday. I was passed by a couple of dozen bikers (typically in pairs). Not one was wearing a GoPro, not one was traveling at excessive speed, not one was yelling "look at me", not one was tearing up rocks an roots and not one of them failed to thank us for stepping aside and wish us a good day.. There are obnoxious bikers. But then there are obnoxious hikers, backpackers, boaters, fishermen, bird watchers..... In my experience, like those catagories, the percent of obnoxious bikers is closer to Imtbike's 1% than Lee's 50%. Or maybe Lee is just doing something to piss those bikers off.
Apparently, the oysters were far from creating any kind of monoculture in the estrero. Maybe Gary has information that the rest of us don't have.
Wow, Lee, 50%. The exxaggeration continues unabated!! :) Obviously, it's impossible to have rational discussion with the wilderness faithful...
Anyhow, the shellfish will soon be gone. People will lose their jobs. Fewer people will visit the estrero, but the pure of heart will rejoice. :)
If one is going to reference Cronon, I feel justified in referencing responses to Cronon.They make for interesting counterpoints.
http://newwest.net/topic/article/commentary_on_william_cronons_the_troub...
http://imaginatures.blogspot.com/2010/01/trouble-with-cronons-wilderness...
While Cronon is interesting, his generalizations don't hold up.
Let's see, I encountered four mountain bikers on my hour-long hike this morning. Two came close to running me over (fortunately, their brakes worked). They sheepishly grinned and pedaled off. Do they get points for not hitting me?
That said, there is more courtesy on the multi-use trails, but here in the Beehive State it's nowhere near the 99 percent that's being ballyhooed.