Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
I'm shocked (shocked) that this whole dispute us about money
Several commenters unfamiliar with the law are confused about the provisions of the Wilderness Act. That Act allows commercial ventures in designated Wilderness when those ventures promote visitation and appreciation of the wilderness area (e.g. commercial camping, kayaking, and birding tours).
In contrast, the Act bans commercial ventures whose purpose has nothing to do with the wilderness experience (e.g. commercial shellfish operations).
Similarly, there is confusion about the nature of the “no precedent” language in Senator Feinstein’s bill. Those familiar with the law understand that the “no precedent” language in this bill is term of art with a specialized and very limited meaning that bans use of the bill as a precedent only in COURT cases.
In contrast, it is easy to understand how the average person unfamiliar with the law would mistakenly assume that the bill’s language banned its use as a POLITICAL precedent. It does not.
This POLITICAL precedent has already been cited by inholders at PRNS whose private beach was sold to the public with 40 years of retained private use ending in 2012….the sellers then asked PRNS to extend their private rights for 10 more years (just like the shellfish company).
Senator Feinstein’s bill (if successful) would have set a POLITICAL precedent to carve out exceptions extending private rights over lands already owned by the American public in every state.
The failure of this POLITICAL precedent is why Senators Jeff Bingaman, Ron Wyden, Mark Udall, and Barbara Boxer spoke out in support of Secretary Salazar’s allowing the shellfish lease to expire in PRNS as intended by Congress.
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation