, author John Hart, wrote a very clear and persuasive point by point look at the Drake's Bay Oyster controversy in which reason, not emotion, holds the day. Thanks John. And below is reprinted that piece:
Photo of John Hart by david sanger
AS
THE AUTHOR of a recent book on Point Reyes, I find myself in a
no-man's-land between the fronts in the oyster wars. Here is what I
think I know.
Point No. 1: Point Reyes is
not a "wilderness park." Unlike classic units of the National Park
System, it was not created from federal land in far-off mountains. And
the seashore is simply unique in incorporating — with the blessing of
Congress — large areas of functioning farmland. The historic use of
Drakes Estero to produce oysters is not different in kind from the
historic use of adjacent pastures to produce milk and meat.
Point
No. 2: Yet wilderness is a valid concept for parts of Point Reyes. The
word "wilderness" evokes pristine horizons, but is also a strictly
defined legal concept, a zone, within which there are no roads, no
resource extraction, and no mechanized access. Even lands that were
formerly settled can be placed in this zone, and come to look and feel
very wild. About half of Point Reyes, mostly in the south, was zoned
wilderness in 1976.
Point No. 3: There was a time when everyone,
environmentalists very much included, wanted the oyster farm to continue
indefinitely. They also wanted wilderness for Drakes Estero. They got
around the seeming clash by endorsing oysters-in-wilderness as a
"nonconforming use." IJ letter writer Jim Linford has recently revived
this position. It was the Park Service that balked, so a brand new label
was invented for the estero and a few other areas: "potential
wilderness." The estero would be highly protected but without the
wilderness label, so long as the oyster farm was there.
Point
No. 4: Congress favored oysters, yet quietly wrote language implying
that the farm should leave. These words are not in the law but in one of
the committee reports accompanying it. They state, as a general
principle, that "potential wilderness" should be converted to full
wilderness as soon as possible.
Point No. 5: Congress later
revised this instruction. Sen. Dianne Feinstein's rider of 2009 allowed
the Secretary of the Interior to renew the oyster farm lease, on
existing terms, for another ten years. Since the existing lease included
a renewal clause, this might arguably have permitted a longer
extension. As we all know, Salazar chose not to extend.
Point No.
6: The Park Service has tried to prove that the oyster farm was doing
environmental damage, and it has failed. This is my opinion based on an
intensive reading of the Environmental Impact Statement and other
documents. Studies should continue. Right now the evidence is just not
there.
Point No. 7: I doubt that the oyster farm is actually
vital to the outstanding cleanliness of the estero. True, filter-feeding
oysters are known to clean coastal waters, and some think they do so
here. The Park Service argues that the natural flushing of daily tides
here dwarfs any filtering effect, and I am (tentatively) convinced.
Point
No. 8: I doubt also that a removal of the oyster farm would bring more
pressure on the adjacent farmland. Some believe that, without oysters,
pollution from cows would become evident in the estero, leading to a
campaign to shut down agriculture nearby. But if tidal exchange is
overwhelming, any such effect should be very minor.
If I had been Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar?
I
would have granted the 10-year extension. I would have asked the
scientists to continue their environmental studies, without pressure.
I would have made such critics as Corey Goodman a full part of this
process. And I would have asked Congress to make it clear that, if given
a clean bill of health, oyster farming could continue.
To my ear, it is not a discord in the special music of Point Reyes.
By Randy Shaw
Strawberry Canyon. Photo credit: 
