Drakes Bay Oyster Company: Jeff Creque's Op-ed on Point Reyes National Seashore Misses the Point

A corporate paradigm of wilderness is explained by

"agroecologist" Jeff Creque in the Marin Independent Journal.

Would Aldo Lepold and the Wilderness Society agree? Hardly.

 

Try my prescription glasses, you'll see much better.



 

In a Guest Op-ed column, "agroecologist" Jeff Creque attempts to put into words his corporate paradigm through which he views Drakes Estero, and with which he justifies a continued commercial operation within the Point Reyes National Seashore wilderness area. Through his glasses Jeff Creque sees what he calls "unlimited biomass" potential.  He sees an open system in which there is "...an unlimited capacity for self-organized complexity, including enormous biomass production and biodiversity potential..." He suggests using his prescription glasses will help you see wilderness in the new, corporate way. 

 

There's always more, maybe over the rainbow

This perspective is the same as those in the shellfish industry of the mid-1800's who first stripped all the shellfish from California's great reefs and then moved north into Washington's Willapa Bay and Puget Sound. In their wake the native Olympia oyster populations were brought to near extinction. "There will always be more" the great industrialists of that time cried. Until they discovered there were no more. It was the same philosophy of Jeff Creque's which left ecosystems up and down the coast destroyed. There is not an unlimited amount of nutrients and carbon entering into Drakes Estero as he would have us believe. That is simply false. Even over the rainbow.

 

Aquaculture is not restoration nor is it wilderness, but it does change things

Attempts to recreate what nature had taken thousands of years to build were dismal failures and it is only through artificial and now industrial scale hatcheries that oysters grow today. But to claim this somehow fits into the congressionally designated wilderness of Drakes Estero is as short sighted as were the early shellfish farmer's belief of unlimited shellfish. More importantly, aquaculture is not restoration. Aquaculture is the artificial creation of an ecosystem which is destroyed each time shellfish are harvested. It is this twisted frame into which Jeff Creque attempts to force his "agroecologist" based justification for why Drakes Bay Oyster Company should be allowed to remain. It is corporate environmentalism at its worst, fracturing the reality of what a wilderness area is meant to be. Aldo Leopold is turning in his grave.

 

Corporate environmentalism through "enlightened management" must be good, right?

Jeff Creque attempts to explain how, through what he calls "enlightened management" that a new corporate view of environmentalism should exist in the Drakes Estero shoreline wilderness area. Lost in that "enlightened management" is what the Point Reyes National Seashore wilderness is supposed to be: a body of water which does not have a commercial shellfish operation operating in leased tidelands covering almost half of the available tidelands. Jeff Creque's attempt to portray Drakes Estero as the only body of water in which commercial oysters are able to grow is as simplistic as is the belief that the nutrient and carbon inputs into Drakes Bay are unlimited, which is his stated belief.  Wearing someone else's prescription glasses will not help your vision.

 

An oyster farm will not stop rising sea levels, neither will corporate profits

Jeff Creque's piece ends drifting in the doldrums when he writes:

Titular designation as "wilderness" will not "protect" it from rising sea levels, acidifying ocean waters, climate destabilization or the broader global catastrophe unfolding around us.

Drakes Estero's designation as a wilderness area is not intended to protect the marine environment from global man made events taking place any more than resisting the export of coal to China will stop carbon emissions. It will, however, make a statement that there are actions which are far more important than corporate profitability for future generations to look back on as inspiration. Especially when an area is designated wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act.

 

Self-organizing systems do not change what wilderness is. Man does.

The "complex, self-organizing dynamics of this living, open system" known as Drakes Estero exists with a commercial operation in it which is extracting nutrients and carbon, and which is changing the natural ecosystem through artificial structures and non-native species. It is the antithesis of what the Wilderness Act is supposed to preserve for future generations. Jeff Creque's "agroecologist" paradigm may be fine for other areas of California's west coast, such as Humboldt Bay or other parts of Tomales Bay, and a farm. But it most certainly is not what should be allowed to define a wilderness area.

 

Aldo Leopold would not agree Jeff Creque's eyeglasses help see anything more clear

Finally, to pretend that Aldo Leopold would agree with this corporate paradigm being espoused by Jeff Creque to justify the continued operation of Drakes Bay Oyster Company in the designated wilderness area only shows how bad his eye sight is. Saving DBOC is not one of the "pieces" which Aldo Leopold would have wanted saved. He helped found the Wilderness Society, dedicated to expanding and protecting the nation's wilderness areas. November 29, 2012, the Wilderness Society's President Jamie Williams wrote this:

Area in Point Reyes National Seashore is critical refuge for wildlife 

“The Wilderness Society is pleased to see Drakes Estero protected as the only marine wilderness on the West Coast. Preserving this critical marine area is crucial for the long term conservation of the Point Reyes National Seashore,” said Wilderness Society President Jamie Williams. 

“We applaud U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for the decision to protect this important scenic and ecological natural resource.” 

 

 

.

Professor of Marine Biology Writes on Why Drakes Estero Should Become Wilderness

 

Suggests those who claim benefits from the farm's continued

operation should "review a college-level ecology textbook"

 

Placement of grow-out bags in Drakes Estero

Wilderness?

 

On July 31, the Marin Independent Journal published an editorial by Professor Joe Mueller, a local professor of marine ecology and environmental science, and winner of the prestigious T Award in 2008. In that editorial he writes why it is misguided to believe a commercial shellfish operation growing 20 million* non-native oysters benefits the marine ecosystem of a designated marine wilderness area.

(*Note: The figure of 20 million non-native oysters referred to is Kevin Lunny's estimate of how many non-native oysters, along with 2 million non-native Manila clams, would have to be removed if he were forced to close. It is part of his sworn rebuttal, signed on January 16, 2013. Some ardent supporters, such as east coast writer and corporate story teller Sarah Roph, claim the number of 19 million presented by the Coastal Commission to Superior Court is somehow distorted.)

 Professor Mueller's editorial from MarinIJ.com is copied below.

 

Marin Voice: Doing what's right for the ecology

 

I COMMEND the level of public engagement in the debate over whether to protect Drakes Estero marine wilderness or continue commercial oyster operations in our local national park. While the decision did not rest on scientific matters, fundamental ecological principles have always supported protecting this estuary.

 

As a local professor of marine ecology and environmental science for the past 25 years, I would be remiss if I didn't voice strong disagreement with those that feel growing and extracting 20 million non-native oysters from the Drakes Bay Ecosystem is in any way commendable as an environmentally healthy practice.

 

Proponents of maintaining this substantial cultivation and harvest fail to realize many fundamentals of ecological science. In fact, from what I can gather, advocates believe that maintaining this operation is somehow beneficial to the Drakes Bay ecosystem.

At its foundations, the Drakes Bay tidal estuarine ecosystem functions when both phytoplankton and salt marsh plants package sunlight and materials into carbohydrate. The tides then scour the embayment and surrounding coastal area with nutrients.

When we come along and funnel many of those nutrients into oysters for tourists then the system is not able to provide adequately for all the other components of the system (marine invertebrates, fish, birds, marine mammals etc.). This may be somewhat sustainable from a human-use point of view, but it clearly short-changes the non-human aspects of the system.

Of course this is the same fundamental havoc the human species is causing world wide, with 20 percent of the world population using 80 percent of the resources, the very ecosystems we all depend on are suffering, and we've exceeded our footprint.

This provides a unique conundrum for some people in West Marin. How do they maintain their well-earned reputation of environmental sustainability and still extract 700,000 pounds of oysters per year from an ecosystem slated for wilderness 40 years ago? In fact, the wilderness designation allows humans to be visitors to revel in the natural wonder that ultimately provides the attraction for tourists in the first place.

National park and wilderness advocates are asking to save one (yes, just one) estuary on the entire western coast of the United States. This would honor an agreement that Congress made and fulfill the vision to protect Drakes Estero after the oyster lease expired, as planned and paid for. Protecting this estuary for wilderness would spare wildlife from human disruption by thousands of roaring motorboat trips, water pollution, artificial modification through invasive species and nutrient extraction.

There are a few scientists who claim oysters are needed for the Drakes Bay ecosystem to function, essentially stating that the ecosystem wouldn't or couldn't function in a pristine state without human intervention. I would respectfully recommend that these individuals review a college-level ecology textbook to see the flaws in their claims.

I think most agree that nitrogen has been cycling in tidal estuaries for eons without the help of human intervention.

There are a host of other reasons I believe that the pro-oyster company side of the argument is not compliant with healthy ecosystem science. This includes, but is not limited to, five miles of toxic creosote treated wooden racks that continuously add toxins to the water that are spread throughout the embayment with every tide, thousands of plastic tubes that have littered the embayment and surrounding coastal area, impacts from invasive species on eel grass communities, impacts from invasive Manila clams, marine mammal disturbances, and the regular din of motorboat traffic.
This leads me to believe that some sustainably minded Marin residents mean well, but don't fully understand the science behind the controversy.

Joe Mueller of Fairfax is a professor of marine biology at the College of Marin.