Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
The subtitle to this story is even wrong. Drakes Bay Oyster Company hasn't blocked the creation of anything, much less a marine wilderness area. The wilderness area was established years ago. The oyster company has been there for decades and should remain as an inholder- that meaning an existing business prior to the establishment of the wilderness area.
The accusations of harm to the environment are entirely bogus as oysters clean the water and don't affect any of the other wildlife in a negative matter. Look no further than Humboldt Bay that has its own oyster farm. Even the local enviros in Humboldt don't complain about that.
Drakes Bay should stay where it's at.
I don't think it's correct to say this case will decide whether a marine wilderness will be created on the West Coast. The wilderness, per se, has already been established. The case will decide whether a long existing business will be allowed to stay there as they have for decades.
There are a number of businesses (inholders) who are being allowed to stay, as is allowed in wilderness areas across the country. The decision is whether Drakes Bay Oyster Company will be treated differently.
Just what we need. Public pensions becoming a bigger and bigger drain on state and local coffers yet these folks want to divest themselves of one of the more successful businesses of the day.
The study assumes everyone is going to get out of their cars and pay more to go up and down the state to do the same thing they're already doing. Highly unlikely.
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation