jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (196 posts)

Drakes Bay Oyster farm shut down by Department of Interior

  1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago

    This is the way our government is striving to increase jobs and make your life better.

    http://oysterzone.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/2621/

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hi TT. Interesting thread you have here. I fear your sarcastic comment about the government may in fact be spinning a story already over spun
      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7469322.jpg
      Drakes Bay is about 30 miles northwest of San Francisco. When Sir Francis Drake sailed into this bay in the summer of 1579 {1}, he probably found it looking very much as it is pictured here…
      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7469323_f248.jpg
      If he was to sail into the bay again today, he would see the Drakes Bay Oyster Company pictured here...
      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7469342_f248.jpg
      Your thread, TT, has made me curious. What exactly are the facts surrounding this sinister plot by the US government to intentionally eliminate 30 jobs and to deprive one family of its Oyster business?

      In 1962, Congress established the Point Reyes National Seashore to protect the peninsula and slopes above Drakes Bay from residential development. Later, in 1972, the National Park Service purchased land within the federal preserve from the Johnson Oyster Co. and granted the company a 40-year right to continue its oyster operation within the National Park until November 30, 2012.

      Then in 1976, Congress designated that the Drakes Estero be preserved as the very first marine wilderness along the Pacific coast. {2} However, full implementation of the law was delayed by the existence of the 40-year privilege granted to the Johnson Oyster Co.

      In 2004, Drakes Bay Oyster Company bought the Johnson business knowing the guarantee from the government would expire in eight years. The Lunny family, owners of the new company, have run a cattle ranch on nearby government land for generations. They took over the oyster farm hoping they would be able to renew farm’s lease for at least ten years and thus further delay the final plans for the marine wilderness. {3}   

      Now, TT, let us compare the historical facts to the account you linked in the OP statement:

      “The Lunny family, which has made major improvements to the farm operation it took over in 2004, has been hounded for years by a National Park Service with a vendetta so chilling that any rancher on federal lands should be alarmed. Goaded by a clutch of environmental groups, the Park Service has resorted to tactics that might have come straight from Nixon’s dirty-tricks department.

      “For years, Park Service officials have colluded with the California Coastal Commission to hammer the small oyster company with allegations about purported abuses and violations of some of the many overlapping, confusing and contradictory permits with which it is supposed to comply.”

      Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar’s recent decision affects an 8-year-old business and does not appear to be a liberal attack upon an 80-year-old family enterprise. Nor does it seem like it is designed to blindside and undermine the local economy. Rather, it does clear the way to fulfill a 1976 law intended to preserve a National Historical Site and to return a natural marine habitat to its original state as intended by the Congress. Workers were not suddenly deprived of a livelihood nor was the prosperous Lunny family driven out of business by the government. Nor will the loss of the Lunny's $1.5 million a year harvests of shellfish from the estuary have much impact on the trade deficit from imported shellfish that runs into billions of dollars.

      I thank you, TT, for nudging me into a new learning experience. 
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Dr … he_Pacific
      {2}http://www.eastbayexpress.com/92510/archives/2012/11/29/breaking-news-us-secretary-salazar-decides-that-drakes-bay-oyster-company-should-close
      {3} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/2 … 12907.html

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well done - you found much more than I did (although I didn't really try very hard).  I googled Drake and got several pages of highly spun articles similar to what the OP showed, but that was all.

        Funny how these shocking and horrifying forum posts always seem to have just a little more to the story, isn't it?

      2. tsadjatko profile image77
        tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Quilligrapher, so what explaination did you find about the Park Service alleging that the farm’s oyster boats disturbed the quiet of the area, but the measurements used were revealed to have been taken in New Jersey—and involved jet skis - just one of many tcatics they claim has been used to attack the company. You seem to have just ignored the other allegations about the Park Service in TT's article or is it you couldn't find info about them? Or is it you feel that the government has the right to lie to achieve their purpose? And nothing wreaks of spin more than displaying two snapshots of maybe a couple hundred feet of shoreline as some sort of comparison that justifies stealing taxpaying citizen's livelyhoods. A little more to the story? I think ignoring the story is more apropos to your way of thinking. I'm sure you'd be singing a different tune if it were your business, but then maybe instead of beinng an entrepreneur you've worked for the government all your life, that would be my guess.
        I suppose you didn't come across this in yoursearch for info. On Wednesday four law firms working pro bono for Drakes Bay Oyster Company applied for a temporary restraining order with the federal district court in San Francisco. The filing states that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s order to shut down the oyster farm would result in the immediate loss of 2.5 million oyster larvae and the layoff of one-third of the farm’s workforce—roughly 10 individuals—over the holiday season; it notes that 15 people live on the farm, including seven children.It also argues that fulfilling the Secretary’s order to dismantle operations and remove all infrastructure within 90 days is not possible. The lawyers state that a restraining order must be granted in cases in which there is proof of serious irreparable harm and where it is in public interest to grant a restraining order. A hearing on the request has not yet been set.

        Great Christmas present the government is handing these poor people isn't it?

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nice of you to respond to my comments, Tsad.  I appreciate your sharing your thoughts.

          I choose not to engage in a contest to prove my opinions are superior to others. My research focuses on finding facts. My conclusions are based upon the facts, as I know them. How others use or interpret these facts is not my business. Feel free to ignore or reject them. Your research has produced only a request for a restraining order that will surely be judged on its merits. It should be noted, however, that the issues you mention as part of the request do not challenge the right of the Dept. of Interior or the National Park Service to not extend the lease agreement.

          I have not ignored the other allegations about the Park Service contained in TT's article. They are, as you say, allegations while your research has done nothing to prove they are facts. I have gone beyond this article to discover other relevant issues. The most notable is that the Drakes Bay Oyster Company bought the right to operate the farm for eight years and no longer. The National Park Service is under no obligation to extend this privilege and all parties were aware of this fact from the very beginning. I do not see how this can be characterized as “stealing taxpaying citizen's livelihoods.”

          You say, “Or is it you feel that the government has the right to lie to achieve their purpose?” Unanswered questions are not facts but, more often, they indicate a lack of facts. Furthermore, I do not form opinions or draw conclusions based upon what I do not know for sure.   

          You say, “maybe instead of being an entrepreneur you've worked for the government all your life, that would be my guess.” Like most of the assumptions in your reply, this one is also false.
          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7469323_f248.jpg
          “And nothing wreaks of spin more than displaying two snapshots of maybe a couple hundred feet of shoreline as some sort of comparison.” The photos are far from being spin. In 1976, the congress intended to return the Drakes Estero to a marine wilderness in its original pristine state. The photos not only demonstrate that the Drakes Bay Oyster Company shoreline factory does not contribute to achieving this objective but they do so quite effectively. Don’t you agree?
          http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7469342_f248.jpg
          “Great Christmas present the government is handing these poor people isn't it?” I would share your feelings about the lost employment at any time of the year. I would. However, for all of the last eight years, both the management and the employees of Drakes Bay Oyster Company were acutely aware that their business and their jobs would terminate on November 30, 2012, the date established 40 years ago by the Johnson Oyster Company and the Park Service. The Lunny family would be irresponsible if they encouraged their employees to think otherwise. In addition, the Lunny family could be negligent, under these circumstances, if they are not prepared to vacate their tenancy at the end of the lease period. Had the company exercised good judgement, ninety-days may have been more than enough time to remove their property from the land.

          In the end, Tsad, I have nothing to gain by changing your opinions. Think what you will. I try to base my conclusions on facts and if you find my facts to be in error then I ask you to suggest verifiable corrections. On the other hand, I do not see what you have to gain by challenging my motives, questioning my previous employment, or accusing me of ignoring facts.

          Have a great evening, Tsad. I thank you again for sharing your thoughts with us.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You're kidding, right?  That a large company didn't really plant two and a half million oysters knowing that they couldn't harvest them until after their lease was up and they no longer had a legal right to be in the area?  That they didn't tell their employees their job would end at the end of the lease?

          Or did Drake think that a massive, mud slinging PR campaign of innuendos and half truths would convince the park service to issue a new lease in violation of what they are tasked to do?

          Although, come to think of it, it is likely that enough of the emotional arguments, made without telling the full story, will convince people that this poor company is in the right.  Whereupon some idiot politician somewhere will apply pressure to once more give away national wealth for company profits and once more the American citizen will pay the price of padding a companies pockets.

          1. tsadjatko profile image77
            tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            National wealth? You can use that argument to shut down businesses all over the country - so why not shut down the Sunoco refinery in Philadelphia  Using QG's approach look what the Delaware river looked like before they built it
            http://www.packetinsider.com/blog/nature/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/roebling-delaware-river-boats-7-17-11-dsc_4902.jpg
            and what it looks like now
            http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BH697_REFINE_G_20120821191045.jpg

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know.  Is their lease on public land up as well or do they own it themselves?  You know - that contractual agreement between the company and government that said they could use the land for a set number of years?

              If so, are there other plans for the land?  Are there other companies that would pay the nation more for the use of that land? 

              I said a number of posts ago that there was more to this story than was apparent, and it sure looks like Quilligrapher found it - the key to the whole problem is that the lease Drake purchased is up.  They want it renewed so they can continue to use public land for profit, the government has other plans for the land and has had those plans all along and therefore won't renew.

              All the rest is just spin and innuendo.  All the claims of being targeted and persecuted, the nonsense that boats make more or less noise depending on what body of water they are on, the unspecified "allegations" - it all means nothing in the face of the fact that Drake has no right whatsoever to be there.

              Let's talk about a company that screams to high heaven about these things while never mentioning that they have to leave anyway.  Let's talk about a family that bought a company with a very definite, short lifespan and wants to give it CPR at public expense.  Let's talk about just why Drake never mentions that dratted lease and what it might hope to accomplish without talking about it and how.

              Forget the rest of the claims; the lease comes first and foremost.  Without a new one Drake can't operate anyway.

              1. tsadjatko profile image77
                tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sure that's what you guys want to talk about because it obvuscates the injustice of government overreach, agencies lying aboout the facts to acheive their agendas as has been demonstrated in the courts over and over. Just recently 3 Federal court decisions that slapped down the EPA for ignoring its legal obligations. Those decisions harshly criticized the EPA for “magical thinking” (Mingo Logan v. EPA); “unthinkable” conduct running roughshod over due process and property rights (Sackett v. EPA); and “overstepping” the bounds of the agency’s authority. The same modus operandi you find atwork here in this case. http://www.freeenterprise.com/seven-str … result=sub
                There isa problem here with Government over reach and it has nothing to with the so called research QG has done - how you two can totally dismiss the obvious over reach by the goernment in this situation especially in this economy and given the fact that California is over the cliff in unemployment and fiscal solvency - you both are as callous in your views of peoples' rights vrs.the government, the Government who has lied about this situaton which you both seem to think is A OK. Here we have a government who wants taxpayers to pay for birth control so women can enjoy a sex life with no reponsibility and yet they can't extend a lease one or two months to avoid throwing people out of a job at Christmas in a state where there are no jobs. But you probably feel that is OK too because they can get unemployment, for how many years now? and at whose expenxe? The Tax payer. There is so much at play here besides a government lease but your blinders won't let you see it and you dismiss government lying and over reach as simply spin - that is the worst spin in and of itself.
                And QG's pics were not making a point about government leases - his premise was to return the land to it's pristine past or as you would put it our National Wealth.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You're right - I don't quite understand how we go from a company wishing to ignore the legal obligations of a lease to birth control. 

                  Do you actually believe that the purpose behind Drakes insinuations and innuendoes is to provide work for their laborers for 2 more months because of Christmas?  What in the world does Christmas have to do with fulfilling the legal and binding obligations Drake entered into?

                  This isn't about emplyees, birth control, government lies, California unemployment or Christmas.  It's about a large company that wants to abrogate it's legal obligations and continue to make money from the use of nationally owned land. 

                  The only thing new and different about this is that Drake has, through it's huge PR campaign, convinced people that it is in the best interest of the owners of the land (American citizenry) to allow the company to ignore its legal and ethical obligations and continue to profit from that land.  Unusual, particularly in a liberal state such as California where business is normally frowned on and considered suspect in everything.

                  It most certainly is NOT unethical, immoral or somehow wrong of the government to hold the company to it's contract.  My own biggest question is whether or not Drake will be allowed to leave the devastation it has caused or whether they will clean it up before leaving?  That's certainly the right thing to do even though govt. contracts 40 years ago seldom contained anything along those lines. 

                  Do you know if Drake intends to act in an ethical manner and clean up their mess or will they continue to cry about how unfair the world is and walk away with their 8 years of profits, leaving millions of dollars in damage behind them?

                  1. tsadjatko profile image77
                    tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I love the way you two say you do research when all you do from the articles you find is cherry pick info that supports your point of view and ignore the facts that relate to the whole big picture. Here is a comment you like to ignore but part of your own "research".
                    "Transparency –adj. openness, communication, and accountability. Secretary Salazar is the least transparent member of our opaque administration’s cabinet. The Drake’s Bay Oyster Company has now officially been sacked by environmental zealots who secured their agenda under the umbrella of powerful lobbies including the Sierra Club, Audobon Society, National Parks Conservation Association, and other local interests. We are just now engaging in the havoc created by the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. Passed under significant pressure from the Executive Branch, and ultimately pushed through the House with a Cloture motion from the Senate floor, this act has resulted in sweeping and un-vetted changes to our public lands unmatched by any previous administration. There was absolutely no peer-reviewed science behind the decision to shut down the Drake’s Bay Oyster Company. I cherish the richness and diversity of our National Parks, but un-vetted action such as this should be criminal. What’s next for Point Reyes? Will the Sierra Club manufacture another issue to close the half-dozen Shaffer/Howard dairies that occupy NPS land? These ranches are every bit as culturally significant as the Coastal Miwok, yet I’ll be surprised if they aren’t already earmarked for elimination."
                    I wonder why you left this video out of your extensive "research". http://vimeo.com/52331881 Could it be you don't believe there can be two sides to a story?

    2. tsadjatko profile image77
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Here is the "rest of the story" - http://vimeo.com/52331881 - Salazar is just trying to put an end to the issue so the tactics, lies, misuse of data, gross misconduct by the Park Service and the environmental movement, can continue to be covered up. This story is only about Environmental Zealots whose philosophy is the ends justifies the means. Watch the video and YOU decide. (Thanks to Quilligrapher for "research" that brought this video to light even though he cherry picked information from the article supporting his preconceived notions while ignoring this video).

      1. tsadjatko profile image77
        tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well in the latest update in the battle between Kevin Lunny and government environmentalism run amok. Drakes Bay Oyster Co. owner Kevin Lunny won a legal battle Monday when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency injunction that will keep his operation open until his appeal can be heard. http://www.marinij.com/westmarin/ci_226 … rieve-will This after U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected an appeal of her previous ruling dismissing a preliminary injunction request to halt the federally ordered closure of the oyster operation in the Point Reyes National Seashore. Here is the truth about what is really going on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdUDXZRUTaw

        1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
          tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for the update.  It has encouraged me.

          1. tsadjatko profile image77
            tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Here is more: Cause of Action, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that is representing Drakes Bay owner Kevin Lunny in his legal battle with the federal government, released the report, titled "Keeping Entrepreneurship at Bay: How the Department of the Interior Uses Flawed Science to Foreclose the American Dream." http://causeofaction.org/wp-content/upl … Report.pdf
            It criticizes what it called the "systemic manipulation" of scientific data by the Marine Mammal Commission, National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of the Interior leading up to the decision to allow the Drakes Bay Oyster Co.'s lease to lapse, effectively shutting it down, although the decision is being appealed. Cause of Action alleges the misrepresentation of data influenced a U.S. Cabinet member's decisions, was quoted in a Department of Justice filing in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and in general has hurt business. http://www.marinij.com/westmarin/ci_227 … new-report North County GOP congressman Darrell Issa is among the leaders in a fight against the closure of Drakes Bay Oyster Company in Northern California. Issa, current head of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, criticized the National Park Service last year for arguing that the Marin County oyster farm’s permit should not be renewed. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2013 … ers-obama/

            1. tsadjatko profile image77
              tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this
              1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
                tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The article in the link mentioned Alice Waters of Chez Panisse restaurant. There was a fire there last week?
                Perhaps someone who didn't know the reputation this woman has for developing small  "environmentally sustainable businesses practices" decided to let her know the interior department didn't like anything productive. The restaurant doesn't use anything that isn't organic or isn't grown within a few hours of Berkley.  Just saying.

  2. tsadjatko profile image77
    tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago

    Oy veh! California is in bad shape - totally run by democrats now any agency there will have free reign to reap more havoc - the state is going bankrupt as California State Controller John Chiang has announced that total state revenue for the month of November 2012 fell $806.8 million, or 10.8%, below budget. Democrats thought they could hammer “the rich” by convincing voters to pass Proposition 30 to create the highest state income tax in the nation. But it now appears that high income earners have already “voted with their feet” by moving themselves and their businesses out of state, resulting in over $1 billion shortfall in corporate and income taxes last month and the beginning of a new financial crisis.   http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government … -THE-CLIFF

    If President Obama gets his way (increasing tax rates on the rich which they will get out of paying) America is headed the same way - raising tax rates alone never increases revenue - the rich just leave or find ways to not pay the taxes - they can do that, they are rich! And what entrepreneurs want to throw more money at a government notorious for wasting it when they don't.

    1. Repairguy47 profile image61
      Repairguy47posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I never was an "End of the world" kind of guy. But these days I am convinced this idiot in the presidency is out to dictate rather than govern. Could get ugly...

      1. 0
        Sarra Garrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The jerk in the White House wants to turn America into Amerika.  There's not much hope for the near future that's for sure.  Now what is this family supposed to do?  Not to mention that the price of oysters will now be going up in CA.  Geez there is no end to making peoples lives miserable.

        1. tussin profile image60
          tussinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I prefer Ameriqqa.

    2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If the rich gave all their money and we all gave all our money how long would the government continue?  As long as it takes to print more money?

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I think National Parks should be parks, for wildlife.  Not farms where private individuals profit by exploiting public land for commercial gain.  If they want to farm, they can purchase some land to do it on.

    1. tsadjatko profile image77
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Land? Oysters don't grow on land, I thought everyone new that. The Park Service alleged that the farm’s oyster boats disturbed the quiet of the area, but the measurements used were revealed to have been taken in New Jersey—and involved jet skis. So it's OK for the government to trump up any lie to confiscate a business?
      Turning a tiny portion of the coastline of California’s Marin County (part of the National Seashore) into the first marine wilderness in the continental United States also requires destroying a family-run oyster operation that has conducted business in the same spot for eight decades.That's 80 years. I suppose if you had a legal business for 80 years you'd be happy to have it confiscated by the government? Well gee, why don't we make the whole state a National Park and kick everyone out? After all it was all public land at one time.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Isn't that just a tiny bit misleading?  That 80 year figure is actually 8 years (eighty without the zero) - the Lunny family took over a business (no indication of who owned it prior that) in 2004.

        Of course, that spin doesn't excuse shutting down the business.  The "allegations" (unlisted) in the article might, but there is insufficient evidence to justify the action either way (because those "allegations" were actually egregious violations that the writer didn't want known?)

        Personally, I'd need a lot more information before going either way, but that's the way of the web today; spin everything as much as possible while leaving out any pertinent information that doesn't agree with what we want the reader to conclude.

        1. tsadjatko profile image77
          tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know where you learned math but in my book 8 decades equals 80 years, not 8. From the article: "destroying a family-run oyster operation that has conducted business in the same spot for eight decades."

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I learned math in school, where I also learned to read.  The business was purchased in 2004 by the Lunny family.

            While the business has been around for 80 years the inference that the same family has had it that long ("I suppose if you had a legal business for 80 years you'd be happy to have it confiscated by the government?") is totally false.  It's called spin - not factually incorrect, just twisted to give the reader a false impression.

            In any case, it isn't necessarily a matter of govt. running a small, mom & pop type business under.  There's far more to this story than given either here or in the link provided.

            1. tsadjatko profile image77
              tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's not spin- it is a fact that it was a a family-run oyster operation for 80 years, not just 8  - plain english - has nothing to do with who owned it last - you are spinning it and the Lunny's wouldn't have owned it at all if it hadn't been there 80 years, give me a break. And how do you know the Lunny family didn't take it over from a relation anyway. They only mentioned them to reference  they made big impovements...grow up you don't know spin from the facts..

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You're right - I don't know.  I don't know who they bought it from, or whether it was a corporation, a member of the Lunny family or another family/individual.  The link didn't say.

                Just as it very carefully did not list the "allegations" from the govt., or that it has been a years long struggle.  Just as it gives no idea just how big this little "family run" business is (along with the cattle ranch and avocado farm that is apparently under the same control).  Just as it references a study of boat noise, specifying that jet ski noise is included in the report but not saying whether that particular sound is included in the govt. complaint.  Just as they complain the noise tests were carried out in NJ when a boat doesn't care one iota where it is when the noise level it produces is measured. 

                There are a whole lot of unanswered and carefully hidden questions in that link.  Just how big is this operation and that of the other businesses owned by the family?  Why were the public tours canceled some time back - what is it that suddenly the public should not be seeing?  What were those "allegations" of the govt. and what was the outcome?  Have there been fines assessed against Drake, and if so what were they for and were they paid?  Why are there dozens of sites all with the same basic highly spun information and all ranking very high in the Google SERPs?  Who put them there?  Why is actual information on the operation buried and hard (if not impossible) to find?

                1. tsadjatko profile image77
                  tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Did it ever occur to you that the Government has to have all that information and if it would help their position or public exposure to this issue don't you think they'd be putting it out there? I doubt there is a media kaball hidding a family business's activities. If anyone wants to bury thei part in this it is probably the government.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It is not normally the business of the govt. to actively hide what it is doing in something like this. The Govt does not normally go public and publish all it's activity; that is left for the courtroom and until that time it is generally left quiet.  Not hidden; it is usually available if one knows the right questions and procedures, but not published for public consumption either.  Either way, though, Drake is most definitely hiding it and it very much makes me wonder why.

                    It would be easy in the extreme to make those "allegations" they are complaining about public but instead they leave it at "allegations".  Why, if not that they are true and something illegal to boot?  If they are false it would make wonderful PR to release the information...

                2. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It was nice to hear from Quillographer again, and his revival of a year-old thread has prompted a little more digging into this topic.

                  You are correct that the original link was long on accusations and short on details, but... a little browsing does turn up some of the background info for their claims.

                  The video the site urges us to watch is certainly a pro-Lunny piece, but it did raise my interest. see The Lunny video

                  Further reading found a more detailed explanation of their allegations - you can see that here in a compiled chronology: The Lunny chronology of events

                  As I am still reading, I haven't formed an opinion yet, but I thought this information might help answer some of the questions you posed.

                  GA

      2. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The oyster farm is the boundaries of the Park. that makes the government their landlord and able to evict them.  An action I agree with.

    2. 0
      Sarra Garrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Really? Where is this family supposed to farm oysters now?  You can't substitute Rocky Mountain Oysters for Ocean Oysters.

    3. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Where the government has shut off land use others have come in and usurped your right and my right to enjoy the areas and done little to protect wildlife.  Much of the back country of California that belongs to the government is occupied by drug cartels and very unsafe for individuals to traverse. 
      We cannot drill for oil in the golf coast, but  other governments can come within 60 miles of the US and drill without our high standards. Who is going to protect wild life when they have a catastrophe?

      This closure put 30 people out of work and threw 17 out of their homes.  It is absolutely beautiful.  You wouldn't even know there was fishing going on here.  The Sec of Interior said, "It will take about a year to return this to its natural habitat".  Ecological damage takes years to repair not months.   .

      1. tsadjatko profile image77
        tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You are so right. Salazar is just trying to put an end to the issue so the tactics, lies, misuse of data, gross misconduct by the Park Service and the environmental movement, can continue to be covered up. This story is really about Environmental Zealots whose philosophy is the ends justifies the means. Check the vimeo video I posted. This Ecological damage is just a bunch of lies.

  4. tussin profile image60
    tussinposted 3 years ago

    Oyster farming.  Learn about it and other forms of aquaculture.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster_farming
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_farming
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrimp_farm

    (in reply to sarra and tsadjatko)

    1. 0
      Eat-Sleep-Gameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      who knew oyster farming was so interesting

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    If creating marine parks is gross misconduct, I'm all for it.  It is more important to prevent mass extinctions and fisheries collapse so fish remain available for everyone, than for a few people to make money from a frankly ridiculous farming system for oysters. The ecological damage is well demonstrated and the seas belong to everyone. Its one of the last things that the wealthy, generally, could not monopolize.

    1. tsadjatko profile image77
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "creating marine parks is gross misconduct"? Nobody ever said that - You can't accept the facts of the story so you try to create that strawman? How lame is that? Watch the video, it clearly explains the gross misconduct and nowhere implies it is creating marine parks. The ecological damage is not well demonstrated which is clearly demnstrated in the video which, if you watched the whole18 minutes you wouldn't make such absurd statements...assuming you are a rational person.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image90
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hi again, Tsad.

        I watched this video more than once. It raises some legitimate questions about the data used to criticize the oyster farm. However, there is one issue in this entire affair that does not seem to be addressed in this film or by your posts. If the answer is in this film and I missed it, please point it out to me.

        Where in this film will I find facts that establish the Drakes Bay Oyster Company has a right to operate at this location beyond November 30, 2012? To my knowledge, allegations of gross misconduct, bad science, and malfeasance are not enough. If the company’s right to stay on is not established in this film, where will I find it?
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7469329_f248.jpg
        There have been a few references in this thread to this photo of the Drakes Bay Oyster Company site. After all the criticism, I am pleased that we all agree it is accurate. If anything that I posted is untrue, I would welcome all verifyable corrections.

        Finally, there is nothing to justify a remark about another poster’s ability to think rationally. Clearly, a high regard for one’s own opinions does not excuse personal attacks against those who disagree. Shall we keep the discussion to the facts?
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

        1. tsadjatko profile image77
          tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The question you should be asking and what this forum topic was originally about is what gives the government the right to use deceptive tactics, lies, misuse of data and gross misconduct by the Park Service to deny renewal of the lease which is routinely done in the absense of evidence of ecological damage. That has been made very clear and you have made it very clear by you own condescending remarks that you have your own agenda and won't be swayed by the evidence. You labeled factual information from that video and other articles as just spin when in realty you are doing all the spinning like the pic you keep posting which is obviously purposely taken from a perch in a  way to give the observer the most unflattering impression when the video has myriad shots that show the business in it's true setting and viewed by several different angles.
          I am not surprised either that in the face of the facts you have decided to accuse me of personal attacks when alI I did was make a true statement. And if you think "If creating marine parks is gross misconduct, I'm all for it." is a rational response to the video and information shared  in this forum then I seriously question your rationality. You the one who criticised me for not researching more while you cherry pick your own findings and ignore mentioning what was the most informative, accurate and damning video about the whole situation...I'd be ashamed if I were you.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Based upon your reply, Tsad, I conclude you have no facts to prove the Drakes Bay Oyster Company has a right to operate an oyster farm at this site after the lease expires. I do not believe either of us has any more to contribute to this thread. I thank you for sharing your viewpoints.

            Have a good night.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

            1. tsadjatko profile image77
              tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What a copout! Good job. You'd love to have everyone believe either of us has nothing more to contribute to this thread wouldn't you because I don't believe you couldn't find that information, I did in my first search for the subject and it doesn't exactly support your position. Odd that you can't find that information with your superior research skills because it is contained in the lawsuit by Lunny. According to Lunny's lawyers the 40 year lease carried a renewal clause that should have been triggered by the National Park Service.  Congress issued a directive in 2009 that Salazar personally consider renewing the oyster farm's lease for another decade. Salazar disagrees of course and thus the suit. You can read about it here: http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/20 … hore18255.
              So to answer your statement I have just contributed more to this thread and nothing has changed, the video says it all. Do you still want to side with the government's disputed lease enforcement or can you admit the government misconduct allegations are not just spin?

              1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Hi Tsad.
                I admire your persistance even if it is devoid of relivant facts.

                Thank you for adding that a suit filed by the Lunny family acknowledges a renewal clause that the National Park Service was not obligated to implement. Thanks also for reminding us that “Congress issued a directive in 2009 that Salazar personally consider renewing the oyster farm's lease.” It is my understanding he did just that and the company’s lease to operate the farm was not extended. Am I correct so far?

                You keep insisting, “the video says it all.” The video only raises some legitimate questions about the data used to criticize the oyster farm. However, the video does not provide proof that the Drakes Bay Oyster Company has a right to operate at this location beyond November 30, 2012? If you have proof that they do in fact have a right to continue operations than simply produce it, I will admit they should remain, and the thread will end. However, allegations of gross misconduct, bad science, and malfeasance, even if true, do not establish that right.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

                1. tsadjatko profile image77
                  tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Produce it? The courts will produce it - you can't produce other wise as I told you there are two sides to the lease - It's in the courts, they will decide and until they do I'd say your position has no more validity than Lunny's, unless of course you are a judge (or play one on TV?) . No one said the video proves anything except demonsrate how the government uses tactics that are patently wrong and therefore why wouldn't they play fast and loose with the lease terms. But all you can do is side with a government agency shown to behave as though they are above the law. And no matter what the court decides it doesn't negate the fact that rogue agencies like the Park Service and the department of interior, just like the  EPA have been shown to abuse their power on many occassions and should be held accountable. They are there to serve the public, not persecute businesses. Quit trying to change the subject just so you can diminish the revelation of what is really going on here.

  6. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Cook and professional farming advocates support farm.  In other news, water still wet.

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Secretary of the Interior was going to destroy the oysters if he got his way.  Why? If people couldn't eat them then he didn't want the otters and seals to either. 
      The only area damaged is where the otters have over fished the natural reserve next to the farm. If you look at Monterey Bay, approximately 200 miles south, which has been a sanctuary for many years has otters and not much in the way of aquatic wild life. Nothing the Otters like to eat anyway.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Personally I feel national parks should not be farmed.  That is all.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed.  What is not being said here is that there were plans made over a decade ago to turn that area back into the park it was supposed to be rather than the nearly free farm land that those old leases made it into. 

          The current lease owners knew that when they bought the operation - there should have been no surprise when those plans were followed.  And in fact I highly doubt there was any surprise - they just want to continue the use of public land for their private income.

          1. tsadjatko profile image77
            tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There is much more that is not being said here than your favoring of government abuse of power and over reach.

            Here it is from Bob La Belle of San Anselmo, a lifelong resident of Marin and a conservationist after "A federal appellate court cites 'serious legal questions' about Interior Department's refusal to renew Drakes Bay Oyster Co.'s permit, saying 'the balance of hardships tips sharply' in favor of the farm, then grants an emergency reprieve.":
               
            ANOTHER harmonic convergence is underway in Marin. This time its vibe is real and palpable and manifests directly out of the mouths from the voices of societal leaders.

            This time no humming or blissful chanting on Mount Tamalpais is required, only mindful connection of dots.

            The convergence, this time, is about sustaining oysters at Drakes Estero:

            President Obama's economic recovery plan focuses on revitalizing small businesses of middle class working folks; his agencies actively extoll establishing and restoring oyster beds to help sustain ecosystems.

            A federal appellate court cites "serious legal questions" about Interior Department's refusal to renew Drakes Bay Oyster Co.'s permit, saying "the balance of hardships tips sharply" in favor of the farm, then grants an emergency reprieve.

            The Independent Journal runs a front-page article about the $445 million contribution of National Parks to Marin's economy by visitors lodging, hiking, seeing elephant seals — and eating oysters. Another features the launch of the "Grown Local Marin County" branding campaign that promoting foodsheds, as Supervisor and MALT board member Steve Kinsey puts it, of West Marin's organic sustainable farms, ranches and aquacultures.

            The Park Service's own publication, "Stewardship Begins With People," effectively and passionately embraces — and justifies — renewing
            Advertisement
            Drakes Bay Oyster Co.'s lease.

            Check it out online.

            "Stewardship" presents a blueprint for "advancing innovations in collaborative conservation for the stewardship of our national system of parks and other special places" by highlighting successful examples of places, people and businesses long imbedded in national parks and nearby agricultural communities. Each is a poster example of sound, time-honored mixed use of park lands.

            In a prior edition now out of print and no longer Web-accessible, "Stewardship" featured the Lunny Family Farm and its wise diversification into oysters.

            Pages 4, 20, 30 and 32 are particularly poignant and speak to the Park Service's policy of exploring creative ways to "re-establish a connection — between parks and living cultures; between public lands and the stewardship of farms and forests; between people and the food they eat; and between park visitors, communities and a more sustainable future."

            The Park Service's "Stewardship" promotes small, historic, local, family-owned, organic, sustainable, educational, community enriching, job creating, diverse food producers and eloquently reaffirms a sense of place, local cultures, regional identify, distinctiveness and character, and the need to address the unraveling of social and economic relationships to the land.

            And as it so advocates, the Park Service speaks directly to the validity and value of continued mixed use of Drakes Estero by our national treasure, Drakes Bay Oyster Co.

            The Park Service itself — convergently and harmonically — got it exactly right.

            The oyster farm's lease should be renewed.

            Marin Voice: Harmonic convergence for Point Reyes oysters
            By Bob La Belle
            Posted:   03/17/2013 05:49:00 AM PDT

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, yes.  Drakes has mounted a huge, and expensive, PR program to promote the idea that their farming of the peoples land is a good thing for everybody in the country.  I realize that, just as I realize that it probably helps the local economy and the handful of workers there.  Plus, of course, the owners.

              Nothing different here than every other private business profiting from national lands - the only real difference is the amount of money being poured into the fight to continue to do so rather than let the rightful owners (US citizens) have it back, just as the contract requires. 

              But that's how it works, isn't it?  The business with all the money to buy the courts and politicians always manages to get what they want; the people paying the price get the shaft.

              Lunny wants to farm a park area?  Fine, let them do so as a non-profit, donating all proceeds to the welfare system taking care of the poor.  At least the public that owns the land can get something out of it.

  7. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I simply don't see that as being the mission of the national park system, but a distortion of it.

    If the land is suitable for being a reserve supported and protected by tax dollars, it should not be farmed.,  If it really should be farmed, it should be sold to a farmer.

    The government should not be in the business of farming, and the tax-payer should not be contributing to supporting farms.

    1. tsadjatko profile image77
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well if you read what the park service said itself in The Park Service's own publication, "Stewardship Begins With People,"  then you disagree with the park service itself - very good, you support them and you don't support them but that is no different than they themselves going against what they adocate so really you only need to say I support whatever they do but not what they say (which appears to be the way they operate anyway)

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I disagree with them.  I think their mission has been distorted by a profit motive and extreme lobbying.

        Parks are parks, farms are farm, farks are a nonsense that needs to be stamped out. Either make it a park, or make it a farm.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          +1  We don't need to subsidize farks with public land OR funding.

          In my area it's "rarks"; cattle ranchers grazing their cattle on public land.  That's not quite so bad; the cattle are turned loose in limited numbers and pretty much left alone.  The public still has free access to the land and a few cows wandering around don't bother me nearly so much as an ugly, smelly oyster treatment plant with a constant stream of fishing boats in a small park.

        2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
          tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It wasn't until Richard Nixon invented the Environmental Protection Agency that the two mixed.

  8. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Indeed.  But I get worked up when leasing the ranchers demand that animals that predate on their cattle (e.g. wolves) or compete with them (e.g. deer) be killed, at 100% taxpayer costs. A conservation park that kills animals.  That is Bullshit for sure. The ranch use only really makes sense in ecosystems that depend on large grazers for some functions, but where buffalo are locally extinct.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm with you 100% - wolves are the big thing around my area.  Ranchers hate them and want them gone, to maintain their free and easy grazing grounds.

      Sorry, but if you want to use the park for grazing you'll have to put up with the wolves, too.  They are part of that natural park.

    2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Otters are large grazers of oysters.  If the Lunny's aren't giving a constant food source to those otters the whole pacific coast will be fished out in 20 years. If they don't allow some there product to be eaten by wild life the wild life will get in and destroy the farm.
      The reason the Russians killed the otters, when they settled northern California, wasn't just because they have wonderful pelts, partly is because they have huge appetites and clean an area of all food then move on to the next food source.

  9. Soul Man Walker profile image60
    Soul Man Walkerposted 3 years ago

    Same old twisted environmental regulation rhetoric. That farm is skanky.

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You been there?

      1. tsadjatko profile image77
        tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        More insight pointing out the duplicity of agenda driven government and it's agencies. http://agalert.com/story/?id=5287

        1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
          tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks! You have greatly encouraged me.
          The whole idea of keeping people "Out"  has been one disaster after another.   As I watched the mop up of a fire on my friends ranch a few years ago, a park ranger  said, "This is a godsend we were thinking we were going to have to  apply for a permit to burn back here.  That is the only way to get rid of Medusa Head weeds.  The rancher gave the park district 1000 acres of his land about 10 years ago. Too expensive to graze cattle here.  They moved most of the cattle to the central valley.  Now there is only a small 30 acres spread that back up to the park.

          1. tsadjatko profile image77
            tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Below is the whole crux of the matter that the proponents of big government (like Quilligrapher) are blind to. They forget that "we the people" are in control of government, not unelected power hungry government bureaucrats. As this article states:
            “Government accountability is not a partisan issue—neither is saving jobs.  This amendment would save 30 jobs at Drakes Bay Oyster Company and 40 percent of California’s oyster market.  It would also send the message to the Department of Interior that transparency and scientific integrity cannot be casually dismissed for political purposes.”
            Bipartisan Amendment to Save Drakes Bay Oyster Co Filed in Senate Budget Proposal http://causeofaction.org/2013/03/22/bip … -proposal/

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ummm.  Yes, "we the people".  Not money hungry businesses.

              Although to be fair, the huge amounts of PR poured into this issue may yet overcome "we the people" in favor of corporate greed.  Government is well known for allowing and even encouraging that: that money talks is all too true in our government.

  10. Wayne Brown profile image84
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    I would suggest that you look on the Obama side of the equation and see who is out there that is interested in acquiring this type of business....just keep your eyes peeled for who buys it.  This type of thing went on during the Clinton administration allowing Tyson Foods some above average opportunities in terms of acquiring the troubled businesses...all very convenient.  Tyson just happened to be one of Clinton's biggest financial backers.  ~WB

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Salazar, Sec. of Interior wants to destroy all the Oysters. He doesn't care that that will effect the wild life. as well as people. 
      The only people who have taken over government closed property in California are drug cartels and the like. The back country of CA is dangerous. 
      The odd thing about this is nobody in the area whats to shut this down. You can't get much more environmentally protective than this area.

      1. tsadjatko profile image77
        tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think Salazar wants to destroy oysters, he wants to help destroy a business that the Park Service was unable to destroy by lying and using false studies to try and get them out. These environmental zealots have their own agendas and they stick together from the state to the federa level to gain and keep power. The only thing that stands between free enterprise and their tyranny is the courts or congress and in this case both are at the moment all that is preventing them from working their nefarious deeds which includes schemes like what Wayne Brown mentioned above that happened in the Clinton administration. It's all about power and influence and the environment is just their excuse, a means to the end which is more power over our lives. Otherwise why would they be turned over and reprimanded by the courts (federal environmental agency I mentioned above) or contradict their own publications by their actions (The Park Service's own publication, "Stewardship Begins With People," effectively and passionately embraces — and justifies — renewing Drakes Bay Oyster Co.'s lease. Check it out online..http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_22802524/marin-voice-harmonic-convergence-point-reyes-oysters)

        These agencies aren't really about protecting wildlife or wilderness, they are about power and tyranny and any means that justifies that end. If you believe "progressives" are anything else then you are naive. What they really are is "regressives" as is demonstrated everywhere their policies have been applied overtime.

        1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
          tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So true.

          1. tsadjatko profile image77
            tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this
            1. tsadjatko profile image77
              tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Here is what happens tomorrow: http://www.marinij.com/westmarin/ci_232 … yster-farm On Tuesday, Lunny and his wife, Nancy, will be seated behind their lawyers in the federal courtroom facing 9th Circuit Judges N. Margaret McKeown, Paul Watford and Algenon Marbley, a visiting district court judge from Ohio.
              "We're living day to day," Lunny said. "We're confident. We think the 9th Circuit will see it our way. But you never know."
              The uncertainty comes at an inopportune time, when he would ordinarily be planting 200 million to 300 microscopic oyster larvae in the estero, due for harvest in a year or two. If he plants the oysters that he ultimately cannot harvest, Lunny said he could be forced into bankruptcy. If he forgoes the spring planting of his marine crop, he would be putting himself out of business. "It's decision time," Lunny said.

              1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
                tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                At some point people in the United States need to be able to make a living.  If the people who are against environmentally sustainable businesses and stuck to their words and left the rest of us alone we would all be a lot better.
                Thanks for the update

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Let this one make his from his big cattle ranch or other businesses, not from the peoples parkland.

                  1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
                    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Your sticking to your principles delights me.  Still, I will try to convince you.
                    To be a cattle rancher in California you almost have to pick up the manure after the cows. smile  We are the only state that doesn't know manure is good for the soil.
                    This whole issue is about the little man vs Goliath. Have you looked at an ocean lately. Think about the power of an ocean and tell me men can effect it.

              2. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Greetings, Tsadjatko. I truly hope you are doing well.

                Actually, none of the many issues swirling around this case will be settled on Tuesday. Instead, Mr. Lunny, a renter who refuses to vacate government property after the expiration of his lease, continues to farm oysters while not paying rent.

                I thought I might add a few more quotes from the same news article you cited.

                “Federal District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in February that the courts had no jurisdiction over Salazar's decision and also held that Lunny was unlikely to prevail on the merits of the case.

                Lunny's appeal to the 9th Circuit was granted three weeks later, setting the stage for Tuesday's hearing.”

                “If at least two of the appellate judges agree, the case will be returned to a federal district court in Oakland, where a judge in February rejected Lunny's claims, prompting his appeal to the 9th Circuit.

                But without the court order, which one of Lunny's attorneys said would ‘preserve the status quo,’ the case and his business may effectively come to an end.”

                No doubt there will more to add once a decision is handed down.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                {1} http://www.marinij.com/westmarin/ci_232 … source=pkg

                1. tsadjatko profile image77
                  tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  As usual, your comment is missleading - the article (nor I) didn't mention that any of the issues would be settled except that " If Lunney plants the oysters that he ultimately cannot harvest, Lunny said he could be forced into bankruptcy. If he forgoes the spring planting of his marine crop, he would be putting himself out of business. "It's decision time," Lunny said.

                  If the appellate panel rules against the oyster farm, the company's legal team is expected to appeal — either to the full Ninth Circuit or directly to the US Supreme Court.
                  But I understand you have to get your 2 cents in somehow.

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                    Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi there, Tsadjatko. I hope all is well with you.

                    I must admit you have me baffled. I find nothing misleading in my post at all. I do not mention Mr. Lunny's planting plans nor did I suggest that the article said anything about these issues being settled by this hearing. Therefore, I am afraid I have no idea what your point is. I merely added additional facts from the same article, not one of which is misleading. Nearly everything in my post came directly from the same article from which you also quoted. I am confident that you will have no complaints about the source.

                    Finally, both your first and your last sentences come across to me as unneccessaryily rude. Is this forum not the place to express our opinions? I am sorry that we do not agree on this issue, however, I respect your opinion as being just as valid as my own. It is a shame that you can not extend the same respect to me.

                    Enjoy your evening, Tsadjatko. As always, I wish you the best.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  11. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    What makes more sense: 1) he wants the park in a more natural state, or 2) he has a pathological hatred of oysters?

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The answer is 42.

  12. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I don't really care if the environment is just an excuse.  If farming in the parks is stopped, the environment will benefit.

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If that is what you truly feel then there are lots of houses and buildings in most cities that should be torn down, starting with Washington DC and the San Francisco waterfront.   Because they are parks too.

  13. 61
    locksmithtampa FLposted 3 years ago

    we all going to shit anyways lol

  14. Quilligrapher profile image90
    Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago

    The LA Times reports the Department of the Interior has filed a legal brief in the case before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It argues that the oyster farm in the Point Reyes National Seashore has been fairly treated by the National Park Service and it is time for the operator to honor the terms of its lease agreement.

    The brief read, in part, “After forty years, it is not inequitable – rather, it is the essence of fairness – for the United States finally to gain control over the land that it purchased, enabling the American people to enjoy wilderness in Drakes Estero.” {1}
    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
    {1}http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-oyster-farm-20130405,0,7276906.story

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting. The closing of the farm  closes the area to people. So who will get to enjoy Drakes Estero?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Presumably, the public.  I rather doubt that Drake opened the area to anyone wanting to boat, fish or otherwise enjoy the area.  The primary, and nearly only enjoyment, came from counting the cash the company pulled from public lands.

        Hopefully when the mess Drake left is cleaned up and is safe to be around the public will finally get to enjoy the area belonging to them.

  15. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago

    The saga continues. Thanks for the update.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You are very welcome.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Amy Trainer, a member of the West Marin Environmental Action Committee, contributed further insight in a piece on the CA Majority Report.

      “The [Drakes Bay Oyster] company still has Pacific Legal Foundation – directly funded by the Koch Brothers -- advocating for it, is still working with arch-conservative members of Congress, and continues to appear on numerous extreme right-wing talk and television shows, so firing Cause of Action in no way severs the oyster company’s ties to the ultra-conservatives interests that want to develop our nation’s national treasures like Point Reyes Seashore.” {1}
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.p … p;aid=5025

      1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
        tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If progressives funded by George Soros lie, cheat and commit fraud, we are supposed to applaud their savvy.  Why not Koch brothers?

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi TT.

          Actually, as best I can tell, no one contributing to this thread has been asked to applaud lies, fraud, or even savvy. I am here to applaud truth and the truth has no political bias. 
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    3. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this



      On Sept 4, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling to allow the termination of the lease permitting commercial oyster farming by the Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

      The Lunny family, according to three of their lawyers, will further delay eviction proceedings by requesting a review of this opinion by the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, the Lunny family will continue to operate the farm for profit as holdover tenants until this latest challenge is decided. {1}
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_240 … -continues

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Nice people, the Lunny's.  Lose in court after court, refuse to leave while continuing to profit from the public and messing up our parkland.

        Can we just send in the army or national guard and carry them out as so many sacks of potatoes?  Or, with special overshoes, just dump them in the middle of the estuary they are fouling?

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Wilderness. Your solutions sound so harsh. Payment of government legal costs, back rent and the surrender of profits since the termination date of the lease seems just to me.

          The Lunny’s have a right to exhaust all the legal remedies available to them under the law. They have allowed themselves to be drafted as pawns in a much larger political chess match. So far, the terms of the lease and CA laws of tenancy seems to have the upper hand but, as you know, anything can happen. 
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, all right.  Pay the legal fees, rent and reimburse any sales income, but no consideration given to costs during the period.  Just sales - they chose to risk their money, they can take the loss.

            I don't see them as being "drafted"; after all the tear jerker web sites I think this comes from the Lunny family.  Certainly they've enlisted help, but that's different that being drafted.  Opinion, to be sure, but that's what it looks like to me.

            1. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Your points are well made as usual.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

            2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
              tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Some years ago employment laws in CA.  A person would walk into a particular chain of restaurants and claim the law was being broken, it wasn't , but they made the claim because a given restaurant would pay40k to settle rather go to court case. This went on for several years until one franchisee said enough.  He went the full court route.  It cost a huge amount, but he won hands down.  That  was the end of fraudulent law suits.  I see the Lunny's as ones who will go the full measure for the good of us all .  They have lived in this area all their lives.  They were ranches before the oysters farmers. 
              Why is it the government is always right and the little man is always wrong these days.

              1. tsadjatko profile image77
                tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Looks like they might go all the way!
                As promised, the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. appealed to an expanded panel of a federal appeals court in San Francisco Friday to allow it to keep operating at Point Reyes National Seashore.
                The oyster farm and owner Kevin Lunny asked an 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a decision in which a smaller panel of the court ruled against the company by a 2 to 1 vote in September.
                In that ruling, the smaller panel upheld a federal trial judge's denial of a preliminary injunction that would have allowed the oyster harvesting to continue until a full trial is held on the company's lawsuit against the U.S. Interior Department.
                The oyster company is challenging former Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar's decision last year to refuse a lease extension and thereby enable the site at the national seashore to return to wilderness.
                A trial in the court of U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland would be months away, and the current appeal concerns whether the company can stay in business until then.
                In the meantime, it is continuing to operate under a short-term temporary injunction granted by the appeals court for the period while it appeals the injunction issue.
                Friday was the 45-day deadline for the company to file a petition seeking rehearing of the three-judge panel's Sept. 3 ruling. The oyster company previously announced on Sept. 4 that it planned to do so.
                Reconsideration by an 11-judge panel is known as en banc review.
                The appeals court receives about 1,000 petitions per year for such review and grants about 20, according to a court spokesman.
                The petition contends the smaller panel's ruling conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court decisions on "questions of exceptional importance" concerning judicial review of agency decisions.
                In the Sept. 3, ruling, the panel majority said a 2009 federal law gave Salazar the authority to refuse to renew the lease. It also said Lunny took over the remainder of a 40-year lease from another company in 2004 with "full disclosure" that the department did not intend to renew the permit when it expired in 2012.
                The farm grows oysters on 1,000 acres of submerged lands in Drakes Estero, an estuary of Drakes Bay, and packages them on 1.5 acres of land along the shoreline. It says it produces more than a third of all oysters grown in California.
                The appeals court has no deadline for acting on the petition. If it declines to grant a rehearing, the oyster company could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dr … 25251.html

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We differ just a tiny bit in considering that the oyster farm, profiting from the use of public land, is "for the good of us all".  The only "good" is to the Lunny family; they tiny lease payments are inconsequential.

                The Lunny's are still cattle ranchers; the oyster farm is only a sideline.  But what does that have to do with following the contract they signed?

                1. tsadjatko profile image77
                  tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The only "good" is to the Lunny family??? Talk about extreme fringe - you are it.
                  I guess you don't like Oysters. If there was no good from them producing oysters, there would be no Lunny family Oyster business - your statement  demonstrates that you have no idea how capitalism works  - you are like the federal employees at the EPA - More than nine out of every ten employees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are considered "non-essential" and were furloughed in the federal government's shutdown. You probably suppose that more good comes from nonessential federal employees than from capitalism, don't you.  You probably suppose that more good comes from a department where 9 out of ten of it's employees are not needed and yet they get to suck taxpayer money for their salaries. Well here are some lawmakers who disagree with your idea of "good".   
                         
                  Two former California lawmakers who helped establish Point Reyes National Seashore have filed a federal court brief supporting a commercial oyster farm’s right to continue harvesting shellfish in the park’s protected waters.

                  William Bagley, a former Marin County assemblyman, and Pete McCloskey, a former Bay Area congressman, filed a 26-page brief this week supporting Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s bid for a rehearing by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which rejected the company’s case in September.

                  Their “friend of the court” brief challenged the legality of former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision nearly a year ago not to renew oyster farmer Kevin Lunny’s permit to raise oysters in Drakes Estero, a 2,500-acre Pacific Ocean estuary.

                  The brief, backed by 11 other parties including the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, also asserted that even without a federal permit for use of the estero shoreline, Lunny could continue oyster cultivation under a state lease of the estero “water bottoms.” Read about it:
                  http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20 … /131029830

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Somehow I don't think that getting that family off of public land is going to take oysters off the dinner table.  It won't even affect the price significantly if any.

                    That's nice that two politicians have been paid enough to become a "friend of the court".  They do not, of course, know anything about farming oysters (NOT simply harvesting them), they know nothing of estuary waters and little of maintaining state parks.  But they make good "friends of the court" when bought!  Same for another 11 unnamed parties that encourage land rapists to skirt the meaning of the law, working around it to continue to deny people use of their own land.

                  2. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I can't express how amusing and telling it is to see the far right calling another conservative "extreme fringe" big_smile

                    Yup the far right went nuts in this country, so much so it's turning on it's own moderates, thank Christ it's dying.

                    It's also amusing how tsadjatko accusing wilderness of not understanding capitalism while postulating an idea that would if legally accepted utterly destroy the capitalist system.

                    This case is simply about whether the owner of land has the right to do with it what he pleases when a contract on it expires. If the courts decide that is not true (which they absolutely won't) then the precedent (yes Supreme court decisions create nation wide precedent) is set that owners of land actually lose title to it when they rent it which means all tenants can keep their landlords property and no one can never rent anything ever again. The further precedent is that private property now means nothing at all.

                    The only result of which would have to be a complete collapse of the capitalist system, obviously that won't happen but it's amusing nonetheless. The far right is so blind it will actually argue for the destruction of the capitalist system for failure to think things through, hilarious.

      2. tirelesstraveler profile image87
        tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for the update.

  16. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago
  17. tsadjatko profile image77
    tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago

    Excuse me - yeah, good point it's just a lease of public lands, no one's private property, but I beg to differ on the point of the thread - the whole point is not that it is public land but "is this the way our government is striving to increase jobs and make your life better?" The  answer  is this does not increase jobs (but does increase the lawyers' income) nor make your life better no matter what the courts decide.

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I feel everyone's life is better when national parks are parks, not glorified farms some rich bastard pays a peppercorn rental for.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You might remember that the ONLY reason the lawyers incomes have increased is because the company violating their lease agreement has decided not to follow the law and vacate the premises as the law requires.

      But then, I guess that could be construed as "better" for someone, just not me...much like the other 12 jobs pulling company income from the public.

      1. tsadjatko profile image77
        tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That is an objective viewpoint? So you have decided before the final court decision which may be the supreme court, that Lunny has violated the law...I'd expect that of you...I will wait to see what the court's final word is - if they side with Lunny as some judges already have in the decisions. Again you demonstrate you know nothing about capitalism - every company in business is [u]pulling income form the public[u] (it's called capitalism), and you say that is bad? a crime? - but the government confiscating your income in the form of taxes - you say that is good? You live in a topsey turvey world but then all socialists (a proven failure of an ideology throughout history) do.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Every court decision to date has been that Lunny is violating the law.  You can wait and hope for something else; I'll take what information we have at this point with the current "final" decision. 

          That information may well change; the politicians hired by Lunny, the so sad tear jerker videos put all over the web, the enormous barrage of PR from the company violating their agreement.  All of these things can unfortunately affect a court decision and the law, but that doesn't make them capitalistic. 

          Because sorry, capitalism is not about stealing from anyone, even the public in general.  You may find that such action is "capitalist" in nature, but it isn't.  You can claim such theft is "good" because it provides jobs, but it isn't.  You can even claim that because not every citizen can enjoy that specific natural resource it should be turned back to a private company cesspool, but that still isn't true. 

          The lease is over, the country wants it's land back to continue plans formulated four decades ago and to which Lunny agreed to when it bought the lease.  Past time to get the H*** out of that park and give it back to the public that owns it!  Dripping tears for 12 people that had jobs there, or for the family that made millions raping the land for private profit has nothing to do with following a contract they accepted years ago.

          1. tsadjatko profile image77
            tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If every court decision has been they violated the law then how is it they are granted appeals? And if they win on appeal your logic is what? they lost every court decision except on appeal so they are still guilty? Grow up.
            http://www.pacificlegal.org/releases/drakesbay-103013 Many law suits are decided on appeal and to say this is settled when they haven't exhausted the avenues provided by our system is naive to say the least and manipulative at best.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Do you know how a court works?  What happens with either a positive or negative verdict?

              See, when you win the case, it's over.  You get to do what you want to do - in this case violate and beauty and serenity of public land.  It hasn't happened yet - every court has said "Oh, no you don't!  You fulfill your contract and get out of there!".  Whereupon Lunny whines about not making any more money off public land, builds another tear filled web site and files another appeal.

              They are granted appeals because they file the proper paperwork to get one.  Not because the appeal has any validity, but because they asked for one.  It has to be really screwed up before a court won't allow an appeal.

              If they win on appeal, they win and the prior court was wrong.  Didn't you know that?  And didn't you know that as long as they keep losing, the prior courts were all right, just as I said?  Or did you think that a group of lawyers paid by Lunny (your link) is the final word, bypassing what the judge decides?

              Congrats, by the way, on your last two words.  When you can't come with something valuable to say, that always works to let the rest of the world know you haven't a reasonable response.

            2. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Being granted an appeal is not an indication of anything except due process. It does not in any way indicate the argument has legal worth.

              1. tsadjatko profile image77
                tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Drakes Bay Oyster Co. effort for rehearing clears hurdle
                By Mark Prado
                Marin Independent Journal

                The Drakes Bay Oyster Co. petition to have its case reheard by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals got a boost this week when the court asked the government for a response to the request.

                Last month, attorneys for owner Kevin Lunny filed a petition for what is known as an en banc rehearing after the court ruled against Drakes Bay in September. The court now has requested a response from the government within 21 days, indicating it is giving Drakes' request some attention. It also could have dismissed the request out of hand, according to Lunny's attorneys.
                The petition to rehear the case argues that the review should be granted because the panel decision conflicts with precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit.
                Lunny is seeking a temporary injunction from the court to allow him to continue to operate until his lawsuit challenging the closure can be heard. Until legal issues are cleared up, the Inverness oyster farm remains open.
                The closure order came on Nov. 29 last year, when Salazar announced he would allow a 40-year lease — originally negotiated with the Johnson Oyster Co. in 1972 and taken on by Drakes Bay — to expire. In 1972, the federal government bought the land from Johnson for $79,200 and provided the lease. Lunny took over the lease in 2004.
                Salazar wrote in his decision that Lunny was explicitly informed "no new permit will be issued" after the 2012 expiration date.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  They are trying to get an injunction allowing them to operate until his many lawsuits have all been settled?  But the farm has remained open and in business for a year without a lease?

                  Why aren't they arrested for trespassing and jailed for stealing oysters from public land?

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                    Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    San Jose Mecury News: Jan. 14, 2014
                    ~SAN FRANCISCO – “A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled against a commercial oyster farm that has drawn national attention for its battle to continue operating at Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County -- a critical decision that could result in the company being forced to close.”
                    http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new … -oyster-co

                    Associated Press, Published: January 15, 2014
                    SAN FRANCISCO — “The owner of a popular Northern California oyster farm says he’ll ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case challenging a federal decision not to renew the facility’s lease.
                    Kevin Lunny, owner of Drakes Bay Oyster Co., made the announcement Tuesday after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it wouldn’t reconsider his case.”
                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ … story.html

                    It looks like we must now wait for the Supreme Court to ask Mr. Lunny the most crucial legal question: “What part of ‘your lease has expired’ do you not understand?”
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  18. Quilligrapher profile image90
    Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago

    I will be back if the discussion ever gets back on topic. 
    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    1. tsadjatko profile image77
      tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Instead of making up excuses to leave because you can't contend with my replies which are directly related to the Drakes Bay case why don't you come back with comments that don't make you the topic. "...back on topic" ? Talk about straw man.

    2. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Ok, I think this is on topic...

      Technically and legally, this issue seems cut and dried - the lease expired and it did not include any automatic renewal language - so the Lunny's tenet rights expired. He has no legal right to remain, or common grounds to complain. No great conspiracy, just the expiration of a legal contract.

      But...  the issue appears to involve more than just a legal perspective.

      1) It appears the contract, (and verbal discussions with with Superintendent Naubacher),  agreement did include language that indicated Special Use Permits, ((SUPs), would be available in 10 year increments.

      2) Although his, (Lunny), failure to get written assurances for SUPs casts doubt on his business acumen, it does appear that Superintendent Naubacher encouraged the business purchase in 2004-2005. What businessman would enter a deal where he knew he would only have an 8-year time frame to amortize the purchase price and a $300,000 capital improvements investment?

      3) It also appears that for a multi-year time frame the National Park Service encouraged and praised Lunny's operations as an example of a beneficial wilderness/human activity cooperation.

      4) Regarding the blighted appearance of the land-based operations, there was a plan, and permits applied for, for one 11,000 sq. ft. building to replace the old structures, which a) appears to negate the "blight on pristine lands" argument, and b) indicates the confidence of Lunny, and the encouragement of the NPS representatives that operations would continue.

      There is more that, to me, would indicate the Lunnys had reason to believe they would be able to secure continuing SUPs to allow them to remain in operation,  but none of this negates the strictly legal fact that a deal is a deal, and the Lunny's deal has expired.

      Sounds like a combination of politics and poor business practices put them in this position and they must shoulder as much of the blame as the political scoundrels of the NPS.

      Common sense seems to indicate that Mr. Lunny must have received encouragement/assurances that SUPs would be available to him, or the deal was an obvious bad deal from the start - even to a novice businessman. Which makes me think the NPS is not an innocent participant in his dilemma.

      Alas, common sense does not appear to be what it used to be.

      I think Drake's Bay Oyster Company got screwed, and I think they made the screwing possible.

      Legally they don't seem to have a leg to stand on, but ethically the NPS's actions stink.

      GA

      1. tsadjatko profile image77
        tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I tend to agree, but then I don't pretend to know all the answers to this, I just know something stinks when you have the environmental agencies lying and fabricating research (as has been proven to be their practice at the federal level in cases unrelated to this) before they eventually get the feds to carry their water through a technicality. The courts will have to sort it all out and I'm fine with that since that is our process, but the process is not over yet. If the decisions to date were reversed I'd say the same thing.

      2. tsadjatko profile image77
        tsadjatkoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Here is the latest comment by Lunny

        Following the ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco last week, which denied Drakes Bay Oyster Company the opportunity to have its case reconsidered, farm owner Kevin Lunny said he intends to push the case through to the U.S. Supreme Court.

        “We believe the court’s decision not to rehear our case is incorrect, and that [b]the dissenting opinion from Judge [Paul J.] Watford will prevail[b/],” Lunny said in a press release. “Because of that, we are requesting our case be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.” (http://www.marinscope.com/novato_advanc … f887a.html)

        Interesting that even on the most liberal circuit court in the nation there is a dissenting judge of the only three-judge panel that heard Lunny's case, isn't it? Oh, I'm sorry, is that off topic? or is he a straw man too.

  19. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago

    Hope you don't like oysters.  The only oysters available on the west coast will be coming from China. The restaurants whose reputations have been built on this industry pleaded for the farm.  This is indeed a sad day.  The government will ignore this lovely area and the pot cartels will move in like they have been in almost every area in California the government has closed.   -Thanks for letting me know about this.  I am out of the country.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good evening, Tirelesstraveler.

      I am inclined to disagree with your assessment of California’s oyster industry. I can not imagine what sources you used to reach your conclusion. Please share them with us!

      In its best years, the Drakes Bay Oyster Company produced only one-third of the state’s oyster crop. After its closing, harvesting will continue in Arcata Bay located in the North Humboldt Bay complex, Tomales Bay, Morro Bay, Santa Barbara offshore waters and Agua Hedionda Lagoon in Carlsbad. The statewide industry is not expected to perish anytime soon. {1}

      Your dire prediction for the entire West Coast is equally suspect. Substantial levels of oyster production exist in both Oregon and Washington.

      The Drakes Bay Oyster Company was not the only producer on the Pacific Coast.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1}
      https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx … ntID=34440

  20. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    From the US or China, oysters are already contaminated with Fukushima radiations...

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      O well,  something has to kill you sometime. It might as well be something you like.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      After searching over a dozen sites on the subject the closest I could find to contamination of oysters with Fukushima radiations was a scare monger site screaming that radioactive water was still being emitted and "soon" no one would be able to eat seafood at all but was unable to provide any data on contaminated seafood.  Every site that had done actual testing or referenced anyone that had indicated there was no more than normal background radiation and no contamination of radioactive materials.

      Where can I find information that oysters from the US and BC, Canada are contaminated with radiation from that accident?

  21. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 2 years ago

    It's O.K. that you disagree.
    I bought and consumed some oysters two days ago.  I much prefer clams over oysters.
    This was never really about oysters. It was about the government taking whatever it wanted, presuming to know what's best for people and places that in a blink of an eye it disregards.

    Thank you so much for staying faithful to this forum, friend.
    Judy

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      OR...it was about big business using public resources to pad their pockets while violating contracts it had agreed to...  Or maybe about big business trying to change decades old plans for public lands in order to gain personal profit. 

      Either way it doesn't present a very pretty picture of what the deep pockets of big business can do to us all.

  22. tirelesstraveler profile image87
    tirelesstravelerposted 21 months ago

    Dear Quilligrapher,  I have few worries that there will be little left in five years.  The ocean is rising and will reclaim the area soon. All those things in the picture are all biodegradable.  The metal from the harvester will rust away and the wood will create a habitat for wild life. 
    Thanks for keep me up to date. It's been a rough winter.

 
working