Earth Island Institute logo, tap or click to visit the Institute home page

Go Back: Home > Earth Island Journal > Latest News > Post and Comments

Latest News

In Defense of Drakes Bay Oyster Company

Field Notes from Point Reyes National Seashore

The latest environmental controversy has to do with a small, little animal whose anus passes through the middle of its heart.

pt reyesPhoto by Flickr user lidiadehenPierce Ranch trail at the Point Reyes National Seashore.

For those of you who aren’t molluscologists, I am referring to the oyster (Crassostrea virginica or Crassotrea gigas). And for those who don’t happen to live in the rarified precincts of Marin County, California, I am talking about the long running battle over Drakes Bay Oyster Company, a family-run outfit located at the center of one of our most unique national parks, Point Reyes National Seashore.

Here’s the latest headlines: On November 29, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that he would not renew Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s operating permit, and gave the oyster farm 90 days to close its doors. Salazar’s decision was the culmination of a seven-year-long debate (or, if you prefer, a 40-year-long one) over whether the oyster farm is compatible with Drake Estero’s designation as a wilderness area.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Stanford professor Richard White described the contretemps this way: “On one side are liberal Democrats … who promote local and organic foods. … On the other side are liberal Democrats who advocate on behalf of wilderness and public access to parks. But only one side [the wilderness advocates] have the law on their side.”

If only the matter were so simple.

Beyond the impassioned back-and-forth over what exactly the science says about the estuary where the oyster farm is located, beyond the parsing over the original intent of the Point Reyes Wilderness Act of 1976, there lie much bigger questions. For starters, how do we define “wilderness”? And, more to the point, how do we measure the value of a pastoral landscape against the value of a wild one?

National environmental groups have been unanimous in demanding that Drakes Estero should become a fully protected wilderness, and the oyster farm removed.  “The National Park Service rightly concluded in its study that the oyster factory is damaging the national park; full wilderness protection is the best way to preserve this fragile area,” the Sierra Club said in a statement following the Salazar announcement. In its statement, NRDC said: “With today’s announcement, Point Reyes’ Drakes Bay becomes the very first marine wilderness along the Pacific, and it will take its rightful place as one of the nation’s most precious and protected wild places along with designated wilderness areas at Joshua Tree, Yosemite, Zion and other national parks. Its preservation will enrich the lives of people today and for generations to come.”

As a passionate backpacker and hiker, I’m instinctively sympathetic to this viewpoint. Wilderness is all too rare (and becoming rarer) and we need more places that aren’t stamped with humanity’s insignia.

But Drake’s Estero is not that place. Having followed this controversy for years — and having spent several spells living in Point Reyes Station, the hamlet at the edge of the park — I strongly believe the oyster farm should stay.

It seems to me the debate over the ecological impact of Drakes Bay Oyster Company is all backwards. The issue isn’t whether shellfish farming is compatible with the ideal of wilderness. Rather, it’s whether a wilderness is compatible with the pastoral landscape that surrounds Drake’s Estero.


• • •


oyester farmPhoto by Flicrk user EarthwormWorkers clean oysters at the Drakes Bay Oyster Farm.

Some background: In 1962 President Kennedy signed a law establishing a national seashore on the largely undeveloped, triangle-shaped peninsula about 30 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge. The designation was a landmark achievement for conservationists. The suburbs of San Francisco had begun encroaching on what historically had been a bucolic area of ranches, farms and dairies. Logging was underway on Inverness Ridge, and real estate interests were starting to carve subdivisions into the bluff overlooking Limantour Beach, a miles-long expanse of white sand surrounded by tall, white cliffs. Environmentalists, led by the Sierra Club’s David Brower (also the founder of this publication), launched a campaign to stop the bulldozers. They won. Congress passed a bill “to save and preserve, for purposes of public recreation, benefit, and inspiration, a portion of the diminishing seashore of the United States that remains undeveloped."

The new protected area was unlike any other national park before — or since. Point Reyes ranchers and dairymen had been opposed to the park, so Congress crafted a compromise to allow them to stay. The federal government would buy out the farmers and then lease the land back to them so they could continue their agricultural traditions. Point Reyes National Seashore would strike a balance between recreation, wilderness preservation, and pastoral land use.

This arrangement continues today. More than two million people visit the park every year. What they find there is an eclectic landscape of fog-shrouded and moss-hung forests, pristine beaches, wind-swept dunes, tidal estuaries … and miles of open rangeland grazed by cows and some chickens. While the park’s northern and southern sections at Tomales Point and Inverness Ridge are designated as wilderness, the interior of park (about one third of the park’s 71,000 acres) is what’s called the “pastoral zone.” It is a working landscape of (mostly organic) dairies and ranches that supply milk, butter, and meat to Northern Californians.

When the park was created in 1962, the large, hand-shaped estuary at the heart of peninsula was left in a kind of limbo. Drake’s Estero (named for the English pirate Sir Francis Drake, who beached his booty-laden ship, the Golden Hinde, there in the summer of 1579 for repairs) is a shallow lagoon of about 2,200 acres. The tidal marshes and secluded beaches of the estero are popular with some of the 470 species of birds spotted in Point Reyes.  Harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) use the lagoon’s mudflats to haul-out, sunbathe and, in the springtime, rear their pups. The estuary is also an ideal location for mariculture. In 1935 an oyster farm was established on the northeast shore of the central finger of the estuary. It was soon one of the largest shellfish producers in the state.

In 1972 the federal government bought out Johnson’s Oyster Farm, the outfit then running the operation, and gave Johnson a conditional use permit to keep farming there until 2012. In 2005 a third generation Point Reyes rancher named Kevin Lunny, whose family still operates the Historic G Ranch to the northwest of the estuary, bought the oyster farm from Johnson. Lunny cleaned up the place, rebranded it as Drakes Bay Oyster Company, and announced his intention to seek a lease extension from the National Park Service and continue operating past 2012.

That’s when the controversy exploded. Some area environmentalists (emphasis on some) were outraged at the prospect of not seeing the estuary receive the full wilderness protection they believed the law demanded. They were quickly joined by national environmental organizations that were eager to secure the first marine wilderness area on the West Coast. (For the record, Earth Island Institute chose not to take sides in the controversy.) The ranchers and dairies closed ranks in support of Lunny family, fearing that if the Park Service kicked out the oyster farm they would be next. Locals split into warring factions. People began trading polemics and potshots in the Point Reyes Light and the West Marin Citizen. In a place where late model Priuses and mud-splattered F-250 pickups seem to split the road evenly, the debate became a litmus test of loyalty. A Point Reyes Station merchant, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the issue is so emotional, told me: “It’s the most divisive issue I’ve seen in the 16 years that we’ve been here.”


• • •


cows grazingPhoto by Flickr userkate_stuart

In his excellent new book, An Island in Time, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Point Reyes National Seashore, Northern California author John Hart offers this encapsulation of the controversy, “Two matters … seem essential: the exact intent of Congress in the Point Reyes Wilderness Act of 1976, and the extent to which the presence of the oyster farm is known to be changing the environment of Drakes Estero.”

Here’s what Amy Trainer, the executive director of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, the loudest and most impassioned critics of the oyster farm, has to say about mariculture’s impact on the estuary: “There are tens of thousands of birds, both resident and migrating, that stop over in the estero. The [oyster company’s] motorboats flush them. The science is very clear on that. They get disturbed when they are resting and foraging. Both the Marine Mammal Commission studies and peer-reviewed science have showed that, from time to time, mariculture operations do disturb harbor seals. You know, this is one of the main breeding sites on the California coast for harbor seal pupping.”

Actually, the science on the matter isn’t as clear as Trainer makes it sound. It would take a whole book to document the scientific back-and-forth on the issue (including the accusations of misrepresented findings and shoddy research), but suffice to say that the best available evidence regarding the oyster farm’s impact on wildlife is inconclusive.

A National Academies of Science report from 2009 said the data on oyster farm-related harbor seal disturbance was so thin that it “cannot be used to infer cause and effect,” and called for “a more detailed assessment.” A professor from UC-Davis who reviewed the Park Service’s draft environmental impact study on the oyster farm removal observed that “impacts of oyster aquaculture on birds are speculative and unsupported by peer-reviewed publications.” And what about the Marine Mammal Commission report Trainer refers to? It concluded that the data supporting the claim that oyster farming disturbs the harbor seals “are scant and have been stretched to their limit” and that “analyses are not sufficient to demonstrate a causal relationship.” As the commission pointed out, the Park Service’s own fact-finding suggests that the worst culprit for harbor seal disturbance might not be the oyster farm, but rather recreational kayakers.

I asked Kevin Lunny, the owner of Drakes Bay Oyster Company, about his thoughts on the question of seal disturbance. “There is no evidence that says there is major adverse effects,” Lunny told me, after rattling off the reports cited above. “There isn’t enough data. They can’t make that claim, and we can’t make the opposite claim.” He later added,

“They [the harbor seals] habituate. They get used to boats going in and out of there. They don’t even lift their head. They could care less if we are out there. They are used to us, they are used to activity.”

Then, in what I’m sure is a practiced line, Lunny said: “They’re called harbor seals.”

In his seven-page memo ordering the closure of the oyster farm, Secretary Salazar acknowledged that “there is scientific uncertainty and a lack of consensus in the record regarding the precise nature and scope of impacts that [Drake’s Bay Oyster Company’s] operations have on wilderness resources.” His decision was based, Salazar said, on the 1976 law designating parts of the national seashore as wilderness. According to Salazar, “Congress clearly expressed its view that, but for the nonconforming uses, the estero possessed wilderness characteristics and was worthy of wilderness designation.”

Here, too, the record isn’t all that clear. The authors of the Point Reyes Wilderness Act created a whole new term to describe Drakes Estero — potential wilderness. The estuary received the conditional designation precisely because of the presence of the oyster farm. The question then becomes: Did the law’s authors intend for the oyster farm to eventually disappear?

Salazar obviously thinks so. But some of the people who were involved in crafting the legislation have a different take. In a letter sent to Salazar in the fall of 2011, former US Representatives Pete McCloskey and John Burton, along with former California Assemblyman William T. Bagley, wrote: "The seashore is somewhat unique in the National Park System in that from the beginning, it was intended to have a considerable part of its area, consisting of the historic scenic ranches being leased back to their owners, and to retain an oyster farm and California's only oyster cannery in the Drakes Estero [sic]. The estero sits in the middle of those 20,000 acres of ranches designated as a pastoral zone; the oyster plant and cannery on the shores of Drakes Estero are in that pastoral zone."

The question of Congress’s original intent will get a full hearing soon. Earlier this month Lunny filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior charging the agency with failing to do a full review as required under NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) and the Administrative Procedure Act. Lunny is also seeking a temporary restraining order allowing the oyster farm to continue operating while the case is in court.

The way West Marin environmental activist Amy Trainer sees it: “This is about law and policy. Congress was very clear that this estuary — this is the only chance on the entire West Coast, and it’s the only one so far in the continental United States, where we have a chance to have a marine wilderness experience.”

But will a Drakes Estero absent the oyster farm really be a “marine wilderness experience”? I hope that in deciding the case Judge Elizabeth Laporte will consider that question, because I don’t think it’s as obvious as Trainer or Salazar or the national environmental organizations make it seem.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 has a clear definition of the wild. In what is one of the most eloquent passages in US legislation, the act says: “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

As most visitors to the estuary will tell you, Drakes Estero — even without the oyster farm — is not a place that meets that standard.


• • •


elkPhoto by Flickr userchrissam42

Ten days after Salazar announced the closure of the oyster farm I took a trip to Point Reyes National Seashore to remind myself of what is at stake in this fight. By way of disclosure, I should say that Point Reyes is one of my favorite places in the world. I have hiked its trails countless times: trekking the wind-blown bluffs of Tomales Point where the Tule elk live, bird-watching at Abbots Lagoon, slogging through the soggy trails of the aptly named Muddy Hollow. I can tell you that there is nothing like leaving San Francisco at 5 PM, driving across the Golden Gate Bridge, and after a shoreline hike pitching tent at Coast Camp as the sun goes down. A good part of my heart is attached to the landscape there.

It was an ideal Northern California December day for hiking. The hills were Ireland-green after a spate of heavy rainstorms. The sky was clear and bright blue and the air chilly. The sign at the Drakes Estero trailhead reminded my companion and I that we were about to enter a “cultural landscape” — a place that humans have been using for centuries.

After a short walk through a grove of pines (the remnants of a former Christmas tree farm), we made our way down to the bridge that crosses the labyrinth-like mudflats. The tide was ebbing and the channel there was low, so we didn’t spot any rays or sharks, but on the far side of Home Bay we could see a large number of white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos). From the bridge the trails climbs the bluffs above the estero, drops down to a small fresh water pond, climbs again, and again drops down to another fresh water reservoir held in place by a simple earthen dike. At one of the inlets we spotted a large group of dunlins (Calidris alpina) scuttling about in the shallows; a trio of great egrets (Ardea alba) stood about as a single great blue heron (Ardea herodias) stalked its lunch. Although it was out of sight, past the far west edge of the estero, we could hear the roar of the Pacific Ocean at the Great Beach, like a never-ending freight train rumbling in the distance.

In most places the trail was a muddy mess. The situation had been made worse by the herds of cattle that also make their home on the estero. Their footprints were obvious, and it was clear how much erosion they cause with their constant traffic. We encountered a large herd of Angus and Hereford cattle (Bos taurus) grazing near a lone eucalyptus tree. After passing through their midst, I turned and counted them: at least 82 head in that one spot alone. (Later, on the ridges above Limantour estero, we would pass through a herd at least a third as large.)

We kept hiking southward through the grasslands and the coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) showing off its downy winter blooms, and eventually found a nice picnic spot on a hill. To the north, the estero. To the south, the western tip of Limantour spit. At the mouth of the estuary, the very critter at the center of the controversy: a herd of at least 50 harbor seals, sunning themselves on a mudflat. During the hour we spent snacking, not one of them moved from their spot. The seals did not seem the least discomfited by the oyster platform about 200 yards away from their haul-out. They appeared way less uneasy than the five or six mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) I spotted watching us bipeds with studied disinterest. 

This, in short, is what makes Point Reyes exceptional: The ability to see scores of birds, dozens of cattle, a herd of seals and the occasional prancing deer — all within just a few miles and all in a mixed landscape of natural wonders and human artifacts. The juxtaposition of the natural and the pastoral is, for this hiker at least, why the place feels wondrous. Yes, I know that the stock tank right before the junction with the Drakes Head trail is artificial. But I like the way that the water’s reflection makes the scene there seem bigger, even as the barn at the Historic D Ranch, seen from that point, makes the space feel smaller and somehow more homey. Sure, the dikes that help form the ponds around the estero’s edge are fake — and they help create the perfect habitat for the grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis) we caught sight of. It was a thrill to walk no more than 12 feet from a cow as she nursed her offspring, and to experience the young calves test their courage by staying on the trail until we were barely an arm’s length away. And it was equally a thrill when we spotted the tracks and scat of a coyote (Canis latrans) on the little-traveled White Gate trail as the alder groves settled into dusk.

Point Reyes National Seashore has always been an experiment in co-existence. My recent hike there offers evidence that the experiment mostly has been successful. Until, that is, the oyster farm controversy shattered the peace.

It’s important to note that the cattle that graze the banks of the estero aren’t going anywhere. Secretary Salazar, in his memo shutting down the oyster farm, ordered the Department of Interior to pursue extending the leases of the area’s ranches and dairies and went out of his way to recognize the importance of the park’s pastoral character. “These working ranches are a vibrant and compatible part of Point Reyes National Seashore, and both now and in the future present an important contribution to Point Reyes’ superlative natural and cultural resources,” Salazar wrote. Even Amy Trainer, considered uncompromising by some people in Point Reyes, concedes that the cattle are there to stay. “This is a compatible use, to have sort of this working landscape.”

I have a hard time understanding how the cattle grazing fits within the ideal — or the legal definition — of wilderness. As long as there are ranchers riding horseback or riding ATVs to manage their herds, the estero won’t be one of those places where “man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Barbed wire fences and gates aren’t something I associate with the wild.

In any case, I don’t believe the estero should be considered wilderness, no matter what Congress has said. The wilderness experience is valuable for the sense of awe that solitude in a magnificent setting can provide — something close to spiritual awakening or religious revelation. The pastoral experience is far different, but no less valuable. The working landscape of fields and farms illustrates how dependent we are on natural systems even as we shape them to our own ends. Whereas the wilderness is special because it’s untouched, the pastoral is important because it’s interactive.

When I asked Kevin Lunny about the difference between the wild and the pastoral, he explained it simply. “People are fascinated with where their food comes from,” he told me. “We have 50,000 visitors a year. The oyster farm is one of the most popular attractions in the park. We are interpreting the landscape around us. We explain how oysters grow, to everyone from little kids to marine biology classes.” He later said: “And driving through the pastoral zone is cool, too. I grew up with it, seeing seashore visitors loving it — driving into our ranch when we’re working cows. And they are coming from the City, and they go, ‘What are you doing?’ And we say, ‘Come on, watch for a while.’ And they are completely fascinated.”

If we need the wilderness because it is inspirational, we need the pastoral because it is instructive. The intimacy of the pastoral experience offers a lesson in how we are involved in a web of relationships to plants, to other animals, to the rhythm of the weather and the tides. A working landscape — perhaps even more than a wild one — situates us, showing us our place on this planet.


• • •


a litte fawnPhoto by Matt Knoth

During our conversation I asked the Environmental Action Committee’s Amy Trainer to tell me why she sees a difference between terrestrial agriculture and mariculture. Why are the ranches OK, but not the oyster farm? Especially given that oyster farming likely requires less human intervention in the ecosystem than the cattle ranching. (“With the oyster farm, you don’t feed, you don’t fertilize. There’s no cultivation at all,” Lunny said.) Also considering the fact that the oysters, as bottom feeders, are helping to keep the estero clean by filtering the cow shit.

Trainer had difficulty explaining why the oyster farm, in and of itself, is so bad. Instead, she kept coming back to the ideal of the rule of law: Back in 1976, Congress said this should be a wilderness, so it was time to make it wilderness. “This has never been about the Drakes Bay Oyster Company,” she said. “It has always been about upholding the very clear law and policy. … This has never, ever happened —  that once Congress has declared a potential wilderness area, and there’s a lease expiration, that commercial rights would be extended. That’s never happened. And whether it’s oil or oysters, it’s the same precedent that could be applicable. That if you have friends in high places, you can get special treatment.”

I get the point Trainer is trying to make (even if her statement is misleading*).  There are rules, and the rules need to be followed. Overt Congressional meddling in established environmental policy — like the 2009 appropriations rider sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein that gave decision-making power over the estero to the Secretary of the Interior — is usually a bad idea. As just one example, see the 2011 removal of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List.

I can also understand why this was a no-brainer for national environmental organizations. In calling for the closure of the oyster farm, they were advocating for an important principle: Whenever possible, potential wildernesses should receive full wilderness protection, and commercial enterprises removed.

In this case, however, the principle is misaligned with the place. For all of the reasons alluded to above — ecological, cultural, educational, recreational — it doesn’t make sense to consider Drakes Estero a wilderness area.

I worry about what this disconnect between the ideal and the specific reveals of the environmental movement. The twentieth century activists who saved Point Reyes knew well that conservationism, in its best sense, is all about a love of place. Affection for place is how the ur-pastoralist Wendell Berry explains it. At the risk of being too cynical, I don’t see much love of place in the behavior of national environmental groups involved in this fight. Not when an overwhelming percentage of Marin residents — many, if not most of them, committed environmentalists — support the oyster farm. Not when I happen to know that the conservation director of a Big Green group advocating for the oyster farm’s closure has never stepped foot in Point Reyes National Seashore. Not when I consider the wall of silence (see here and here and here) that greeted the Interior Department’s move — just two days before Salazar’s Drakes Estero decision — to open 20 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas leasing. The whole affair strikes me as an easy way for national environmental organizations to win some points with a largely symbolic victory and also, on the flip side, a relatively easy way for the Obama Administration to throw environmentalists a bone.

My cynicism is probably just an expression of my frustration. But I simply can’t see many upsides to this decision (if it’s upheld in court, as I’m sorry to say I expect it will be). Californians will lose an important sustainable food producer. At least two dozen people in West Marin will lose their jobs. Visitors to the national park will lose an opportunity to learn a little something new about marine ecology. For the birds and the harbor seals the closing of the oyster farm will likely be a wash. The only winners are likely to be kayakers — and I would guess that some of them will come to miss the chance to paddle around the shellfish platforms.

In its statement released after Salazar’s closure announcement, the NRDC said the “preservation” (air quotes intended) of Drakes Estero “will enrich the lives of people.” Maybe. But for those of us who live here in Northern California, and who really know and love Point Reyes, I can only see how it makes us poorer.


This article has been corrected from the original version, which stated that Earth Island Institute was formally in support of closing the oyster farm. In fact, the institute decided not to take a position on the issue.


* In An Island In Time John Hart points out that there are 29 other “potential wilderness” areas in national parks. Most of them are “potential” because they aren’t federally owned or are encumbered by other property rights. Utility corridors with power lines account for most of the rest. Oil wells in potential wildernesses seem a remote possibility.

Because this fact was shared with me in a casual conversation earlier this fall, I have to keep the identity of the group and the individual confidential.

Jason MarkJason Mark photo
Jason Mark is the Editor in Chief of SIERRA, the national magazine of the Sierra Club, and the author of Satellites in the High Country: Searching for the Wild in the Age of Man. From 2007 to 2015 he was the Editor of Earth Island Journal.

Email this post to a friend.

Write to the editor about this post.

Subscribe Today
cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJ cover thumbnail EIJFour issues of the award-winning
Earth Island Journal for only $15



I am sympathetic with those who enjoy the oyster farm, in fact when I last visited I too signed their petition.

However the the bigger issue is establishing the precedent the folks can agree to environmental restrictions,  then when the restrictions start to take effect, build a political movement to allow the signers to renege. I know it’s fun to fight the government and win, but do we really want every agreement to be overturned?

If we do, no victory or compromise is safe.

By Allan F on Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:43 pm

A few thoughts since I have battled and successfully been a part of a group who has prevailed over National Park Service twice.  Once regarding parking and visitor’s center at Manzanita and recently at Diaz Ridge.

First, why isn’t the cultivation of oysters considered farming?  Isn’t it a “crop” harvested?  Why can’t it be considered as the farms that raise cattle are?

Second, why can’t they be a part of the new agreement being offered the farmer’s by NPS?

If you read the new agreement being fostered, stuck near the end of it, there are a few new sneaky provisions that will allow for more visitors and tours and parking on the farmer’s properties.  That may even morf into overnight stays and NPS getting a part of proceeds by charging them.  Why can’t The oyster farm agree to similar terms that will appeal to the greedy self serving nature of NPS in some kind of settlement offer?

By Linda Johnson on Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:41 am

As soon as I read “live in the rarified precincts of Marin County, California”  your viewpoint was clear.  I could have saved myself the trouble of reading the rest of your opinion.  Thanks for the tip off.

By Allan F on Sat, November 30, 2013 at 1:42 pm

It has become eminently apparent that the EIJ has done its due diligence in framing this response to cater to the Lunny’s and their industrial exploitation of the Drakes Bay Ecosystem by simply stating some very salient and disturbing facts.  The reports issued by various government agencies outlining the impact of the Oyster Farm on certain and specific areas of the Drakes Bay preserve do indeed appear to have been either drafted to purposely misrepresent the data as it would pertain the DBOC or was so shoddily and hastily produced. I have long realised that an honest and fair assessment is paramount in stating our case but I sincerely draw the line when the facts and figures presented are faulty or simply produced to further a political or social agenda.

As stewards of our local environment, the regional ecosystem and the wildlife it supports we are tasked with taking the most responsible, prudent and conscious efforts to stave off development and other human/man made efforts that attempt to encroach upon our environment.  By not acknowledging certain facts and relying solely upon our preconceived notions about past behaviours and what we BELIEVE to be he truth does no service in the grand scheme of things and eventually could prove to be a detriment to further endeavours where the studies and science are in our favour.  I firmly believe we have demeaned our status and belittled our credibility if we are to continue down this path with fuzzy science as our guide.

By Anton Martin on Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:56 pm

The over-the-top response of some of these comments seem to me a reaction to a report from within the environmental community that dares to question the massive campaign and the prevailing party line on this issue.  It is not a black and white issue and I, as a life long conservationist - environmentalist, have had to question my assumptions when faced with the history and reality of the presence of the oyster farm.  I think the article was an excellent summary of the facts and I applaud its contribution to a reasonable debate on the controversy.

By Paul Feyling on Mon, January 14, 2013 at 2:34 pm

Senator Feinstein inserted Section 124 into the 2009 NPS appropriations bill to basically override any previous house reports. In the end, this was a policy decision and not a matter of the law only allowing for one outcome.

By y_p_w on Fri, December 21, 2012 at 9:51 am

People are welcome to argue about environmental impacts of the high sierra camps.  The committee report for Sequoia-Kings gives a tenuous way to keep them there in perpetuity.  It does not require their continued presence.  The committee report for Point Reyes does not even provide this thread for the oyster farm.

By fcb on Thu, December 20, 2012 at 6:46 pm

The fact is that there will substantial impacts with the “improvements” at the High Sierra Camps. These impacts will be considerably more than their normal operating/maintenance conditions. A good many of the public comments during the scoping period were that the installation of said “improvements” would be in violation of the the requirements for operation set out in the management plans.  One alternative would be that they pull them out altogether, since they were otherwise in risk of polluting the wilderness with sewage leaking into nearby bodies of water.

Strangely enough, the National Parks Conservation Association seemed to be in favor of keeping Vogelsang HSC, provided the improvements weren’t a wholesale ripping out of the existing facilities but a retrofit.

By y_p_w on Thu, December 20, 2012 at 3:53 pm

“No.  There are currently improvements being planned for the High Sierra Camps . . .”

Compare the House Reports for the 1976 potential wilderness and the 1984 potential wilderness.  In the former it’s

“land and waters designated as potential wilderness additions [at Point Reyes] . . . 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 in the latter it’s:

“[V]isitor use developments at Bearpaw Meadow and Pear Lake . . . are designated as 30 acre enclaves of potential wilderness addition, in the identical manner and with the identical treatment as is given the ‘high sierra camps’ in Yosemite. If and when . . . [their]continued operation . . . at the then current acceptable operational standard results in an increased adverse impact on the adjacent wilderness environment [and the enclaves themselves, operation] . . . shall be promptly terminated, the facilities removed, the sites naturalized, and . . . the areas promptly designated as wilderness.”

There is a difference.  Congress could take a lesser action, making their continued presence contingent on environmental findings (as they did for High Sierra Camps), or by mandating the issuance of temporary leases every ten years.  But Congress has to do something.  Outside of the Section 124, the Park Service doesn’t have infinite latitude to ignore congressional statutes.

By fcb on Thu, December 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm

“The only way the oyster farm stays is rescinding the wilderness designation.”

No.  There are currently improvements being planned for the High Sierra Camps in Yosemite NP, which were all classified as potential wilderness.  They’re in pretty bad shape, and they will need tons of improvements to the septic systems and grease traps in order to prevent polluting the wilderness with sewage and waste.

The public scoping comments for Vogelsang HSC were overwhelmingly in favor or removal of this particular camp.  Many comments were that this would be a violation of the 1984 California Wilderness Act as well as the 1980 Yosemite General Management Plan that informed the 1984 CWA.  They would require power equipment and a substantial increase in impacts to the wilderness qualities, which were specifically not allowed in the plan.

And of course the result is that they’re going ahead with the utilities upgrades.  That didn’t rescind the wilderness designation.  It just put off the eventual conversion.  It’s potential wilderness.  There’s tons of potential wilderness that remains so indefinitely.

By y_p_w on Thu, December 20, 2012 at 10:49 am

You belittle Trainer’s comments, but if oyster advocates had actually listened to her a long time ago they might have figured out the legal situation and worked toward a legally realistic long-term solution (and not wasted time on 50 tangential arguments or demonizing park service employees).  The only way the oyster farm stays is rescinding the wilderness designation.  It’s 100% about the law.  You can change it, but you can’t perpetually not enforce it.  The real argument is clear.  Do you want the wilderness designation or not?

By Fcb on Thu, December 20, 2012 at 8:44 am

Anyone who can say with a straight face “attacks on the Park Service and false claims of bad science” is not to be taken seriously.

By Sarah Rolph on Thu, December 20, 2012 at 7:14 am

This article is intermittently childish (‘cows degrade wilderness, so oysters should be able to too!!’), ignorant (nearly all designated wildernesses begin as a ‘potential’ wilderness area) and myopic (if your vision for Alemany Farm was as short-sighted as it is for Drake’s Wilderness, we’d still be using the farm as a dumping ground).

But more importantly, the article ignores the history of ecological wreckage that gave birth to the Wilderness Act.  This is a critical oversight, because the Wilderness Act is ultimately an ethical reaction to the sad history of our Nation: every place western civilization reached, it destroyed. 

One might quibble with the starkness of this statement, but both classics like A Sand County Almanac and articles like this recognize that too often we denude the lands in which we live—it’s why Leopold advocates for a land ethic, and this article for arable land. 

But while Leopold urged us to restrain the rapid and violent change we unleashed on the land, this article urges us to embrace it: because, the article suggests, wilderness is too cumbersome to craft landscapes people actually want to use.

But if you lived when Stegner or Zanister lived, every civilized or cultivated land you observed was also biologically impoverished. The only apparent way to preserve anything in such a context is to block civilization from establishing a foothold, even a pastoral one.

Moreover, if you believe, as they did, that this planet has value beyond what our taste buds can savor, designating wilderness was an act of humility: a pronouncement that we would refrain from making every speck of this planet a reflection of ourselves. 

The ethical rationale for wilderness is ignored in this article, and yet if anything the division of land between us and the rest of life on Earth has become more inequitable since the Wilderness Act was passed. Our pervasive influence makes post-environmentalists, who calculate the value of nature in utilitarian terms, confused and uncertain about wildness.  After all, if everywhere you look you see a reflection of yourself, the very idea of ‘nature’ or ‘wild’ can seem antiquated. 

But for those who see wilderness as a proxy for a more just and sustainable relationship with other forms and systems of life, the growing influence of our species everywhere causes us to defend wildness resolutely anywhere.

Of course, today is not the 1930s, or even the 1960s. Perhaps we’ve learned to blaze a new path where our arugula grows lush while elk roam free. 

But if you blaze it in areas that provide penance or ‘potential’ penance for our inequitable relationship with the land, you are acting solely out of political expediency, not some new paradigm of sustainability.  Because it isn’t the wild that is out of whack.  It’s an Oakland with hardly an oak in it; it’s a Bay Delta that is 1/3 landfill; it’s the great sand ‘waste’ of San Francisco that is now a great series of avenues (and yet Muni still doesn’t run on time).

It would be justifiable to blaze this new path in these areas, places where we overstepped our bounds.  But because those places are occupied by people who will fight you for every inch, and by definition wilderness is not, post-environmentalists see places like Drakes Bay as an expedient place to prove their new path is ‘sustainable.’

But farms that denigrate wilderness—and by extension, our humility—are no more sustainable than ‘organic’ asparagus flown here from Peru or the T-shirt with a bird on it made with sweatshop labor.  It’s time for Bay Area urban agriculture aficionados to recognize that sometimes the best and highest way we can use land is to let it make amends for what we’ve done.  Even when that land is inside your 50-mile food boundary: because in a country where you can barely get 20 miles from a road, each of us will have to play a role.

By Brent Plater on Thu, December 20, 2012 at 3:22 am

This is a stunningly disappointing article to find published at the Earth Island Institute. You should be ashamed and I hope the board of directors weighs in on this and provides a compass for the editorial team, if there is one. The author of the article tries to wax intellectual and self-righteous about a having a sense of place and being local, but failed completely to get a grasp on the landscape scale conservation and land protection issues facing Northern California, and finally ends up belittling the extremely ecologically stressed land and sea scapes that we call home. I work for the Environmental Protection Information Center ( and our office is in Arcata, on Humboldt Bay, where there is a growing oyster aquaculture industry. We supported the Sec of Interiour following through on the wilderness designation in Drakes Estero because we know that there are other places (Tomales Bay or Humboldt Bay for instance) that will continue to be part of the productive matrix, and that those other places are the appropriate place for aquaculture activity because wilderness areas, even in a recovering condition, are few and far between. As a matter of fact, this is the first federal marine wilderness in California! But Earth Island sees no value in that? Shameful! Not even an opposing opinion to this one sided essay that was in defense of wilderness! How far from the tree have you fallen? Did you think no one would notice how sad this is? Having failed to even look at the oyster industry on a larger landscape level this article is a cute intellectual exercise, but one that David Brower would have scoffed at for being immature and shallow. I was published in the Earth Island Journal at least once way back in the day, and I continue to read the magazine, but now I know why I have had this feeling that the magazine is lack luster. It is because your sense of place, for being narrow and provincial, fails actually to have any real place to it (let’s talk about loving and fighting for wild Northern California, shall we?), and with articles like this that have no deep commitment to the responsibility we have to wild nature you just fall of the map into irrelevance. Let’s talk about the real problems that national environmental groups can cause for local grassroots organizations in California, but this is not one of them. If this is where things are now, next you will be running cover for Sen Feinsteins upcoming attack on Wild and Scenic River designations as she gets ready to make a gift of Merced water to the agricultural aristocracy. Get a clue and get real about California environmental politics, this article was pathetic.

By Gary Graham Hughes on Thu, December 20, 2012 at 12:12 am

Great, objectively written article. Takes me back there. Thank You.
My two cents- Just go there and see for yourself. The oyster farm is not detracting from the place. Whatever the terms, clauses, blah blah blah- There are better environmental causes to fight for.

By art on Wed, December 19, 2012 at 10:24 pm

Marks writes: “I have a hard time understanding how the cattle grazing fits within the ideal — or the legal definition — of wilderness. As long as there are ranchers riding horseback or riding ATVs to manage their herds, the estero won’t be one of those places where “man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Barbed wire fences and gates aren’t something I associate with the wild.”

I am gobsmacked, and appalled, that the editor of the Earth Island Journal would pen a sentence reflecting such comprehensive ignorance about the politics of designated Wilderness and grazing in the American West. In short, if grazing allotments, including ranchers and barbed-wire fences, disqualified Wilderness from designation, we’d have a hell of a lot less designated Wilderness across the American West.

But ignorance is no bar to opinion, because real Wilderness is pretty places in the Sierra Club calendars, not places we depend on:

“In any case, I don’t believe the estero should be considered wilderness, no matter what Congress has said. The wilderness experience is valuable for the sense of awe that solitude in a magnificent setting can provide — something close to spiritual awakening or religious revelation. The pastoral experience is far different, but no less valuable. The working landscape of fields and farms illustrates how dependent we are on natural systems even as we shape them to our own ends. Whereas the wilderness is special because it’s untouched, the pastoral is important because it’s interactive.”

Find me an untouched wilderness, please. Just one. Explain, please, how we are not dependent on the natural systems of protected places, but just those we cultivate. And how, exactly, did wilderness become not-interactive? When it’s an image frozen on a calendar, maybe, but stalking elk and bear in designated Wilderness has generally felt pretty damn interactive to me.

And, y’know, I disagree with Congress sometimes too. But there’s just no real question that a designated Wilderness is whatever Congress says it is. I’ve been in a couple of Wilderness areas that once had trains running through them.

If this is the New Environmentalism, I want the old, fact-based kind back, thank you very much.

By Scott Greacen on Wed, December 19, 2012 at 10:23 pm

Look again - there was a renewable instrument - thus the controversy and discussion.
Also, it does no good for either side to deny the obvious (the arguments just become silly), e.g. the questionable science, and, the desire for wilderness preservation.

In this case, given all due considerations, I give measured side to an extension to the lease,

By Bruce Schiff on Wed, December 19, 2012 at 10:03 pm

Your route to the Estero is noteworthy - it would be quite different if the oyster enterprise were not there - then the obvious path to our new water wilderness would be reached via the road that now ends at the parking lot by the oyster facility. Now primarily kayakers and oyster fans use that route. The sight is a blight, the business is a noisy intrusion, and the debris paving the shoreline is disgusting. Once the area is cleaned up many folks will find it a great ‘trailhead’ combo - accessible, with sanitary facilities & parking - for exploring the water, shoreline, and bluffs.

From any route, the solace, wonder, and ecological abundance of this vital underwater wilderness is impaired by aquaculture invasives, equipment, and activity. For those, like you, with conflicting priorities and standards of care, this seems difficult to accept, especially under the subtle but pervasive pressure of social or fiscal capital conflicts of interest. The groupthink pressure in West Marin is intolerable and incessant, your response to it sounds typical.

It seems you are having difficulty on two counts: 1) separating the boundary (legal and physical) between the surrounding landscape (which is Pastoral) and the water (which is wilderness); 2) separating reality from LunnyLand PR.

The first may be simply categorical fuzziness - difficulty recognizing that every distinction has a boundary, and every boundary has two sides. By your logic property lines (and laws, and intrusions) mean nothing, because you can see through your neighbor’s ‘imaginary fence’.

The second, sounds like you’ve drunk a serious dose of PR koolaid. Your statement, “Especially given that oyster farming likely requires less human intervention in the ecosystem than the cattle ranching. (“With the oyster farm, you don’t feed, you don’t fertilize. There’s no cultivation at all,” Lunny said.” Demonstrates how little you understand about the true nature of aquaculture - there is a continual need to reposition, haul, and re-sort the multi-million ‘herd’. Legitimate self-education on this topic must extend beyond the ‘oystercult’ mystique spun by this highly profitable, niche industry. Their marketing is robust and sophisticated - appealing to ‘enlightened hedonism’ spiced with salacious innuendo - entirely shielded from biotech, toxic bioaccumulator, and eco-impact realities.

Clearly you have been swept up into the latest messaging - a seriously hypocritical effort to ‘throw the ranchers under the bus’ - now that Lunny no longer is playing the ‘Domino Theory’ which he and allies have whipped up over the years. Again, the antidote is actual education, from reliable sources (not PR from advocates) The cattle-water quality argument is specious on many counts - there are very few beef cattle grazed in Drakes Estero watershed, effective point and non-point runoff measures have been in place for some time, and the tides flush this estuary twice daily.

By Victoria Hanson on Wed, December 19, 2012 at 4:18 pm

The original terms were actually a reservation of use for land on the shore and not the water where the oyster racks sit.  I’ve read it and clause 11 allows for a special use permit to be issued to extend the term.

Additionally, part of the impetus for the seashore was that some of the ranchers were tenants and that many of their landlords were thinking of selling to developers.  Also - the West Marin dairy ranches wanted to keep a critical mass needed to supply dairy processing facilities.  The Feds could strongly influence landowners who didn’t want to sell by threatening the use of eminent domain.  I understand that was a factor in Charlie Johnson selling in 1972.  His oyster farm was an inholding in the park until that point.

By y_p_w on Wed, December 19, 2012 at 9:29 am

Excellent article, Jason! THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

By Yannick Phillips on Tue, December 18, 2012 at 10:06 pm

Lunny didn’t own the land; he didn’t own the business. He bought it, cheap, knowing that it was headed for wilderness protection. He figures he could use political connections to get the lease extended and wilderness status ended. He got Feinstein on board and forced an environmental review. And here we are, with a former environmental organization siding with foodies and ag tourism boosters to work against taking back from human use one tiny, tiny piece of a burning planet. No, “jobs” are more important and the lessons that pastoral landscapes can teach us (that they are biological dead zones?). Sure you could put more impactful industries on the site than an oyster farm. So what? The relative harm was always a red herring. It’s the precedent that matters in the legal case. You start carving well-connected inroads into wilderness and the integrity of the act fails. And that’s something that even Salazar understood, even if you don’t.

By James A. Barnes on Tue, December 18, 2012 at 9:21 pm

This is embarassing. David Brower would be ashamed an article like this was published in Earth Island Journal. I work for one of the national conservation groups that supports the wilderness protection, the Center for Biological Diversity. Oh, by the way, we also have been hard at work fighting off oil leases in the Gulf, in Alaska and fracking leases in California. So your little ad hominem attack on environmental groups is worthless. I also live in Inverness and am a local; very many of us support Salazar’s decision and are sick of the presumption by the Lunnys that their oyster operation should somehow recieve preferential treatment. We are also sick of the attacks on the Park Service and the false claims of bad science. How shameful that Earth Island would support a commercial operation over wilderness protection and try to belitte the ecological value of this estuary. You are making your bed with teabaggers and wise use industry groups. Sickening.

By Jeff Miller on Tue, December 18, 2012 at 7:16 pm

Editor: an interesting piece about the estero, although I think there are some fundamental issues where your understanding is limited, e.g., the legal arrangement is, or was, not a lease and was a non-renewable instrument.  I’d suggest you read the following for further information:

By Michael Mery on Tue, December 18, 2012 at 4:54 pm

Leave a comment

Comments Policy

Remember my personal information?

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

View Posts by Date View Posts by Author


Four issues for just
$15 a year.

cover thumbnail EIJ

Join Now!

San Francisco Green Film Festival