When I first saw the title of
Summer Brennan’s book (The Oyster War,
Counterpoint: 2015) about the conflict in the Point Reyes area over the fate of
the commercial oyster company in Drake’s Estero, I thought it was a bit of
hyperbole. Yes, I knew there was controversy over whether to allow the
relatively new Drake’s Bay Oyster Company (its owners, the Lunnys, bought the
business from the older Johnson’s Oyster Company in 2004) to continue raising
oysters in the Point Reyes National Seashore, or enforce the agreement Johnson
had signed years earlier to stop operations in 2012 and allow the area to
revert to the wilderness status demanded by the Wilderness Act. I had seen the
hand-painted blue and white signs urging locals to “Save Our Drake’s Bay Oyster
Company” displayed in front of dozens of homes and along highways near my home
town of Bolinas. My neighbor Walter, an avowed conservationist, had talked to
me often about how this exhortation should not be followed, and that the Lunnys
should be forced to close the business to preserve the wilderness of one of the
great stretches of wild seashore still left in America. But I had never been
involved in any real discussions of the pros and cons, nor had I read all that
much about it either. I just knew that in years past, no family gathering at my
brother’s place was complete without a trip to Johnson’s to get a carton of
oysters for barbecuing. And I really liked having barbecued oysters available
locally—as many West Marinites clearly did. They were standard fare at local
restaurants and at street celebrations. Almost an emblem of the place. So I was
initially inclined to support the continued raising of the oysters, though I
knew little about them or the cost they might present to the environment and
nearby wildlife.
Once
I read Brennan’s in-depth account, though, detailing the history of oyster
growing in the larger Bay Area, and outlining the reasons and rationales and
strategies of the embattled sides, I was pretty convinced that right had
prevailed. In 2014, as I finally learned in the last pages of Brennan’s book,
the Drake’s Bay Oyster Company was forced to shut down its operations, and
clean up after itself. By the November 2012 order of the Interior Department,
the term of lease for the Oyster company was allowed to expire, with no new
lease forthcoming, and the whole place was bulldozed, the waters cleansed of
all detritus—mostly plastic bits from the oyster racks upon which local oysters
must be cultivated—and all signs of the operation disappeared. Drake’s
Estero—the small estuary at the head of which Johnson’s and then Lunny’s
operations had been located—was returned to its “natural” state as a
federally-designated wilderness area, as provided for in the Wilderness Act of 1964
and all subsequent rulings.
The
problem, of course, was that the order by Interior Secretary Salazar, like all
previous orders to suspend operations in 2012, was not obeyed without a fight.
The war and the oyster operation would continue, because the Lunnys and their
supporters decided to exhaust their last option and take their cause to court.
Though in the end this proved futile when the courts yet again ruled against
them, this last development typified the case: it was not just a struggle by a
commercial oyster grower to continue operations in a National Park, but a much
larger ‘war’ symbolic of both the business vs. government battle that has come
to signify our era, and as a more local contest between usually allied
neighbors in the entire area around Point Reyes. In other words, as I would
come to discover, the title of Summer Brennan’s book was no hyperbole: this was
a real war and its effects are still being felt in bruised and broken
relationships throughout West Marin and beyond.
What
Summer Brennan does in her book is provide the background for the “war” that is
still ongoing. She informs us that oysters have been ‘grown’ in Drake’s Estero mostly
since 1957, when Charlie Johnson started his operation (a small oyster
‘farming’ operation had been there since 1925). More importantly, she points
out clearly that, unlike the insistence of Lunny supporters that Drake’s Bay
Oyster Co. was reviving the “natural” oyster habitat that had existed at Point
Reyes since Indian times, oysters have never grown naturally in or around Point
Reyes: not in Drake’s Estero, not in nearby Tomales Bay where two more oyster
operations still exist, not even in San Francisco Bay where John Stillwell
Morgan had a large oyster operation in the 19th century. All these
operations had been forced, like the Johnsons, to import the “spat” or seed,
and hang them on wire or plastic “strings” hanging from wooden platforms so
they can feed on nutrients in the waters. The reason stems from the sandy
conditions of the shorelines in and around San Francisco Bay and Point Reyes.
To establish themselves naturally, oysters require a rocky substrate on which
to fasten their shells—like the ones that exist in New York Harbor and the surrounding
rivers that, before industrialization polluted them, spawned a cornucopia of
oysters. Thus unable to get oysters to grow naturally, Johnson imported his
oyster spat from Japan, and with tutelage from his Japanese wife, used the
platform-and-string technique Japanese oyster growers had long used. Morgan,
despite determined efforts to grow oysters in San Francisco Bay, had done
something similar: he imported young oysters from Washington state and the East
where they grow naturally, and raised them to maturity here. One more important
fact: the Wilderness Act of 1964, and the Point Reyes Wilderness Act of 1976,
had mandated that the National Park Service implement “wilderness” within its
borders—and Drake’s Estero had been designated as “potential wilderness.” In
other words, it was to be restored to actual
wilderness status whenever possible—by eliminating the oyster farm. Don
Neubacher, superintendent of Point Reyes National Seashore, decided that the forty-year
lease that in 1972 had granted the Johnsons their right to grow oysters should
not be extended. He re-emphasized that the termination date was still 2012, and
notified Johson’s heirs. Johnson’s son Tom, who’d been having trouble with
pollution from an inadequate septic system, soon thereafter sold his oyster
operation to Kevin Lunny, a longtime rancher on Point Reyes. Though Lunny knew
of the plan to terminate the RUO (Reservation of Use and Occupancy) in 2012, he
bought the oyster operation anyway, positive that by solving the environmental
problems he could persuade the Park Service to renew the lease.
Lunny
was wrong. There had been continuing complaints about the environmental mess (the
pollution from the septic system, running motor boats in the Estero, plastic detritus)
created by the Johnsons’ oyster operation, including the problem of disturbing
the harbor seals that traditionally use Drake’s Estero as a resting and
spawning spot. The National Park Service wanted to make Point Reyes as
“natural” as possible for visitors, though it concluded that the
ranching/dairying operations that had long thrived there could continue within
limits. The problem, of course, arose with the notion of restoring any
environment to its “natural” state. The concept was commonly understood but
plagued by problems of interpretation, and into that dubious area sprang Lunny
supporters, especially a nearby resident and prominent neuroscientist named Corey
Goodman. Goodman inundated newspapers and government officials with reports
questioning the Park Service data about harm to harbor seals and government
misuse of what he called “false science”. Beyond that, the Lunny camp recruited
local Supervisor Steve Kinsey to its ranks, and managed to get U.S. Senator
Diane Feinstein to lobby on behalf of extending the lease of the Drake’s Bay
Oyster Company. Feinstein managed to push a Special Use Permit through the
Congress, stipulating measures the oyster farm was to take to not disturb
either seals or eelgrass, and the Lunnys signed it in April 2008. But the fight
was far from over. Lunny and his supporters rallied everyone they could, as did
the opposing side—so that by now the local community was split into such
fiercely opposed factions that neighbors and even families split over their
differences. On the one side were those officials and scientists from the Park
Service, many local residents among them, who saw the dispute as putting all national parks at risk. As one
resident wrote, the dispute was simply a “shell game” carried on by a local
business enlisting major politicians to allow it to do what the lease
termination and a respect for wilderness forbid it to do. If an exception was
made for Drake’s Bay, he wrote, all national parks would henceforth be in
greater danger from commercial operations seeking to take private advantage of
land set aside for the public. On the other side were many local residents and
some national organizations who viewed the dispute as an emblem of a larger
conflict, pitting excessive government authority against private enterprise. On
this side were not only local residents who saw the oyster farm as promoting a local
business (good) over mass chains (bad), and as promoting good local jobs for
oyster farm workers, but also national conservative organizations. A
Washington, DC group named Cause of Action entered the fray, with its executive
director, Dan Epstein, drawing the connection between the heavy-handed National
Park Service lease denial and the plight of small businesses everywhere harassed
by environmental regulations. But when it turned out that Epstein had once
worked for one of the infamous Koch Brothers, and that Koch Brothers money was
financing Cause of Action, many local supporters expressed dismay and disavowed
their support.
What
I did not understand until recently, however, was how such a dispute could rip chasms
in local communities that would linger even after the dispute was finally
settled, and the Drake’s Bay Oyster Company was closed. In recent weeks, after
having read Brennan’s book and been impressed by it, I thought to mention the
book to a friend I knew who lived in Inverness (the tiny community adjacent to
Point Reyes National Seashore), and who I was sure would favor the closure and
want to read it. I mentioned the book, and walked into a mini-volcano of vituperation.
‘The book is totally biased,’ she began; and then proceeded to attack the
author as having been ‘hired by the Sierra Club to do a hatchet job,’ and as a
‘blonde chippy with her New York hairdo.’ I was stunned. My friend then
insisted that the oyster farm had been there for over 100 years (she was close,
if we count from the first operation in 1925), and that there was tons of
evidence that Native Americans had eaten oysters, thus proving they had grown
in the area all along (Brennan actually does concede that a very few oyster
shells have been found in middens, but reasons that they were probably traded
from groups farther north where they do
grow.) I dropped the subject, not wanting to initiate a new war over something
I didn’t truly have a stake in, but the incident puzzled me. When I asked my
local librarian, who lives in Point Reyes Station, what could prompt people to
defend a business that violated the clear law about not extending the
permit, she indicated several reasons: people favoring a local business growing
local food (but the oysters are NOT local; they have to be imported from Japan
or Washington or elsewhere), people upset at the loss of so many jobs by mostly
Hispanic workers, many of whom lived on the site, and friends who had known the
Lunnys for years.
These
are all sound reasons, I suppose. But still, it is fascinating to me—again with
no dog in this fight; I haven’t eaten oysters in years—that such a dispute
could cause so much passion and anger that my librarian actually said she can’t
even mention the word “oyster” in public any more. After all, the end result is
that Drake’s Estero is now as clean and pristine as the rest of the National
Seashore and can be enjoyed by millions. Is that not what most people out here
want? Apparently not when it conflicts with their version of what’s right.
Indeed, the same is true of disputes that have arisen among locals over what to
do with the fallow and axis deer that have, since their introduction years ago,
begun to overrun the native herds on Point Reyes. When the Park Service decided
that it had to cull the herds by shooting some of them, residents went crazy.
Killing those sweet deer. But the deer, without any natural predators, have
spread like the European grasses they feed on. They menace any local garden not
fenced in. They overrun their natural habitat to the point that they can begin
to starve (as they did recently on Angel Island) for lack of food. What is one
to do? Brennan has a chapter on this problem in her book—the problem of
invasives such as grasses and eucalyptus trees and flowering plants and many
types of fish and rodents and other mammals. What is to be done? Without
natural predators, and with invasives from all over the globe having been moved
randomly with our ships and goods, we are drastically altering environments
everywhere by upsetting the balance between predator and prey built up over
millennia. What is to be done?
But
of course, this is a related but fairly separate matter. With respect to the
oyster farm in Drake’s Estero, the Interior Department and the National Park
Service have made their decision. Oyster farming on Point Reyes no longer
exists, and I, for one, think the decision made was a good one—one that
benefits far more people (and the local ecology) than it hurts. But clearly,
many many others disagree and given the signs will likely nurse their grievance
for years. And this makes me wonder: when it comes to the far more disruptive measures
needed to mitigate runaway climate change, can we ever get agreement on what to
do? Can we ever get over the battles that will ensue? Once I might have said that
rational humans could agree, especially in a crisis as potentially catastrophic
as global warming and sea-level rise. After the oyster wars, though, I’m not so
sure.
Lawrence DiStasi
No comments:
Post a Comment