The video laments divisions within our community even as it reiterates the baseless attacks on the integrity of well-regarded local residents associated with the national park. These allegations have been carefully considered by two federal agencies and, while errors were detected in the Park’s early responses to the oyster controversy, these were corrected long ago. Neither investigation concluded that there was any intent to to mislead the public; thus, no fraud was attempted or committed. 

The oystering proponents’ claim of scientific fraud is nothing more than a red herring. The issue presented by the oyster company’s efforts to overstay its Reservation of Use is not the conduct of the Park Service but rather the commercial exploitation of publicly-owned natural resources in a national park and wilderness area.

Carolyn Longstreth, Board Chair, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin

 

The “Oystergate” video is propaganda of a very crude kind. Some of the assertions may be true; others are distortions, such as calling the former Johnson’s “a small oyster farm” when it produces more oysters in Drakes Estero than all the Tomales Bay growers combined.

Nicole Adams, the credited producer, must’ve searched far for video clips that make Don Neubacher look like a zombie, and she followed by holding on a still frame in which his eyes are closed.

The video’s incendiary language, calling people liars and extremists, could actually backfire on the Lunnys. Considering their dignified conduct throughout this protracted ordeal, it’s a little hard to believe they approve the tone of this piece.

Following the video, the website presents a text for viewers to email to top Federal officials. It accuses Point Reyes National Seashore management of conspiring to “tear apart a community.” That’s what the video is also trying to do.

Its central claim, that a plot was laid to harass the Lunnys, would take a lawsuit or a criminal complaint and judicial process to prove or disprove, in my opinion. By the same token, the video may or may not be libelous.

Louis Jaffe, Point Reyes Station

 

This video disgusts me. I have been sympathetic to the DBOC, but the video is a significant factor in my changing my view. Whoever made the video did not do the Lunnys a favor.

Another example of the downside of the First Amendment. Who produced it-the folks who made the “Proof Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Fraud” video?

However you feel about the Drakes Bay Oyster controversy, I hope you’ll consider responding to this inquiry from the West Marin Citizen. It seems the pre-repentance Lee Atwater has come back from the grave, moved to West Marin, and re-created his Willie Horton spot. I’d like to think that most of us in West Marin believe in honest and civil discourse. This is an opportunity to stand up for it.

Burr Henneman, West Marin Community Conversation Task Force member speaking as a civilian

 

Yes, yes, yes! I endorse this video.

Bucky Mace, Bolinas

 

I had some difficulty, at first, but then watched the video several times. I can’t endorse a hatchet, biased thing like this! The video maker should try to sign up with Sarah Palin’s camp, and produce these one-sided, broad-stroked, unbalanced diatribes for her. This is Palin’s style.

Russell and Margaret Ridge

 

I do not endorse this video.

Michael Mery, Point Reyes Station

 

This video is as appalling as the worst kind of television ad in a political campaign-long in innuendo, very short on facts. The heart of the debate, whether or not a special exemption to the Wilderness Act should be made for the Lunnys, is only barely acknowledged by one of the video’s talking heads, Corey Goodman, who says, “I’m not interested in that.”

Who the hell is Nicole Adams? Is she a local? Whoever she is, she has produced an irresponsible piece of hit-piece propaganda. Sarah Palin and her death panels await Nicole with open, welcoming arms.

This video sickened me. It’s too bad Don Neubacher is considered, under the law, a public figure, or else he would have grounds to sue for libel. Gordon Bennett might, however.

Steve Bjerklie

 

This is a scurrilous, extremist, fear mongering campaign that seeks to classify those opposed to the oyster farm lease extension as unpatriotic.  It sounds as if it is underwritten by the Sagebrush Rebellion and the extremist right wing private property rights advocates such as the Pacific Legal Foundation. Some have believed that the Lunny dispute has been a wedge for these groups. This video is bearing out this view. Those interviewed either do not understand the broader implications of what they are doing or they have been misused or they have moved to the dark side.

Lynn Axelrod, Forestville

 

I don’t endorse the means of this video because of its aggressive and demonizing tone-what it calls the Park’s “anti-agriculture agenda” and Bennett’s “personal vendetta.” I’m no friend of the Park in this dispute, but I don’t think it helps the Lunny’s cause to make unsubstantiated characterizations about the Park’s intentions (and Bennett’s motivations) beyond their desire to turn that property into “wilderness.”

Nancy Adess, Point Reyes Station
 

Separating the ends and the means: Yea for ends, but means a bit over-the-top. Obama tie-ins corny.

Bob Hildreth, Point Reyes Station

 

I do not endorse this hit piece on the NPS. Obviously very one-sided, it is shameful that it tries to suggest our entire community supports the Lunny lease being extended over the interests of a wilderness area within our precious park. I like Kevin Lunny but this is going too far. Gordon Bennett should not be demonized as an extremist. This is not helpful and I’m saddened that the Community Conversations did not go far enough to have a truely civil discourse on this issue.

Bernie Stephan, Transition West Marin, Point Reyes Station

 

Oystergate has all the earmarks of a Fox News hit piece-artfully selective in the information (and misinformation) presented. The producers (who are they?) cherry-pick the facts just as they are accusing the Park Service of doing. These toxic tactics undermine community, honest public dialog and my once voracious appetite for oysters.

Jules Evens, Point Reyes Station

 

This video is extraordinarily unprofessional and irresponsible and does a gross injustice to the issues and the people involved, including poor Phyllis Faber and less poor Corey Goodman.

This hateful, salacious piece of slop mischaracterizes the nature of the issues and demeans dedicated and professional scientists and public servants. This work just elevates the destructive antagonisms within the community and misinforms the public at large about the underlying issues.

No, I cannot endorse the video even if the issues have some substance. In this case we can’t separate the means from the ends. Does scientific “misconduct” justify or rationalize lease extension? Has the debate over Congressional intent ended?

Unfortunately, this was not handled well by any side. Now the community has to suffer with a further escalation of these salacious and sanctimonious attacks.

This is a sad time for West Marin, and the aggravation of this video only makes it sadder.

I’m sure this isn’t the final insult that will be leveled at the park service, but no good will come from this behavior, only a further torn and divided community. Worthy of the Reichskristallnacht in its intent and “charm.”

I have always had conflicting feelings about the future of the DBOC. At one time I wanted to like Kevin Lunny and his family, and I have always wished him well until he attacked Don and his staff. Now I can no longer sympathize.

Shameless at a minimum.

Tom Yarish

 

Thumbs down for content. Thumbs up for the creepy, hyper-sinister narrator.

Kathryn LeMieux

 

Trish Johnson: Do not endorse,

 

Rigdon Currie: Do not endorse.

 

Both the “wilderness” faction and the “continuance” supporters base their viewpoint on “well-documented” facts. It’s amazing, isn’t it, how the “facts” change according to the source of information and the point of view.

I sympathize and understand the ardent fervor of the wilderness faction wanting to protect the land after our civilization has wrought so much devastation on it. However, in my view, it is important to encourage and support these small, local aquaculture and agricultural businesses that are done with care for the environment especially now when food safety is a big concern.

But, for goodness sake, what really concerns me is all this energy going into fighting among ourselves. We have a love for our environment in common here. We already have both wilderness and well-tended food sources now. Let’s allow that to continue.

There are really terrible things going on that need our attention like the huge amounts of toxic chemicals that are being poured into our earth, water and air. All of us who are blessed to live in this beautiful place let’s work together for the good of all.

Eleanor Lyman, Bolinas

 

Initially I was put off by the means used, as it is a very heavy-handed style, and not one I’m usually comfortable with. Also, I do not believe the park’s violations were an orchestrated event as much as it was a classic example of minions doing as they were told to do, and bureaucracy covering for its own. I am familiar with the style, as I’ve worked for the government for over 25 years. When the top wants to get its way it first cajoles, then bullies, then threatens until it gets what it wants. Considering how long this issue has gone on, and how much has been revealed both around oystergate as well as other agriculture issues in West Marin (ranches/leases/grazing/etc.), I find myself in support of the means and the message. As Cory Goodman said, (and I paraphrase) “regardless of your stance on the issue, truth is the most imperative issue here.” Truth has not been what we have been told. Truth has not been the basis for decision making here. Truth has not been the guiding principle here as much as Machiavelli’s “the ends justify the means” theory, which seems to be a common thread in large corporations, government, and large bureaucracies. It’s time to say enough. It’s time to take control back. They do not dictate policy, and they certainly do not get to shove their desires down our collective throats using any means necessary to get the job done.

Matt Murphy

 

This is a sick, dishonest and outrageous depiction of lies that smears and defames honorable public servants. When are these fanatics going to end their vicious crusade of personal destruction? This is appalling and I wonder who is paying for such trash.

Peter Douglas, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission

 

The tone and slant of the video is terrible. And it is sad when farmers are fighting environmentalists, when both are outdoor lovers. This is like a swift boat hit piece. I wish the park would study the matter for a few years or more and then people might see who is right. Having cows around the estero does not make it a wilderness area. My view is that working farms and national parks will always be at cross purposes. But there are enough cows in America, and beef ranches and dairy farms, that we are at risk for health problems from them. We need national parks more.

Richard Blair, Inverness

 

Was this video put together by the same folks who were responsible for Swiftboating John Kerry? If not, they surely studied at the feet of those masters. Endorse the video? You’ve got to be kidding.

Paul Coopersmith

 

It is just a variant on the presently popular political “hit piece” - the ad hominem arguments, the ascription of sinister motives, the appeal to populist conspiratorial themes, etc. etc. From the video narrative and the “Take Action” letter it appears that they intend to bully the Park Service (and the Whitehouse!) into granting Lunny an extension. Lotsa luck! I am afraid this is going to be the common form of “discourse” on public matters for some time to come.

Roger Kovach, Bolinas

 

This video is cheesy and sleazy and an embarrassment to DBOC and to the whole issue. I would emphasize the OY in oystergate. OY VEY.

Suzanne d’Coney, Point Reyes Station

 

I do not endorse this video. In fact I couldn’t even watch beyond the first creepy 30 seconds with the creepy music and all, I was starting to get sick to my stomach. For god’s sake, who puts together dreck like that?! It can only be big money from corporations who would stand to gain from erosion of the Wilderness Act. I find this biased drivel abhorrent, but I don’t want my name used, because I absolutely adore Kevin and Nancy Lunny. Thanks for letting us all know about this stupid video.

Name withheld

 

This video is reminiscent of the “Swiftboating” techniques: sensationalism, distorted photography, inflammatory labels applied to opponents.

Rishi Schweig

 

The Lunny’s claim to defend family farming and local agriculture. But the video is self-serving at the expense of the entire Point Reyes community. I hope it backfires.

Susan Ives, Communications for Change


It saddens me to see this approach continuing. By now, thanks to the good efforts of many people, we have access to a different way of working through this terribly divisive issue-the community conversations, intent on preserving respect for one another. I continue to care about and honor all the individuals depicted in the “oystergate” video, whether or not they chose to appear in it, but I do not respect the message conveyed nor the means used. I would like to be part of a compassionate conversation with the folks who paid for this video’s production.

Claire Peaslee

 

I do not endorse the video. It continues a distressing pattern of highly personal and vitriolic attacks (of questionable veracity) about this issue that are to the detriment of our
community and do not promote constructive solutions.

Carol Friedman

 

I see the video as highly inflammatory and full of unnecessarily cruel character assassinations. I know Kevin and Nancy Lunny to be kind and generous people and I am also very concerned about the trend of privatizing public lands. I would like to see who the deep pocketed funders were for this very polished, mainstream media piece.

I also wonder; what kind of local attempts have been made to get all the parties together with a professional facilitator? This has become an extremely ugly situation that is causing a lot of pain for many people who are our friends and neighbors.

Susan Prince, Point Reyes Station

 

I really do feel that while the “tone” of a message may be troublesome, the most important issue is first, whether the content is true; second, whether, if it is true, you agree with it; then thirdly, the context of the overall issue must be given consideration. If the accusations made in the video are true, it is outrageous, and an outrageous response is unfortunately understandable - though still not necessarily preferable nor desirable. On a strictly personal level, if you want me to answer if I would have made a video with that tone, no I wouldn’t have. Do I think it is a bit over the top? Yes, and I’ve personally told Kevin that. But I still feel strongly that it is far more important to address the content. These are accusations of possible criminal misconduct by our public servants. To me, this should remain the focus, not the tone of delivery. If the tone detracts from that focus, it is indeed unfortunate, but a far less grievous transgression than what the NPS is being accused of.

- A West Marin rancher on land administered by the National Park Service (name withheld for fear of retribution.)

I found the Oystergate video reminiscent of the worst kind of political hit pieces. Harry and Louise and Dukakis and Willy Horton come to mind. The message, frankly, was obliterated by the medium. The shock value tactics such as the garish colors of the opening, the conspiratorial tone of the narration and the blurring and then speeding up the video to make their opponents look like puppets was demeaning and disrespectful. It greatly cheapened the Lunny argument. I have always been on the fence about the matter, but this piece gives me less trust in Lunny as well as those who support and paid for this cheap shot. I can’t help but wonder how some of the people featured in the video feel about the final product.

These propaganda tricks merely attempted to manipulate viewers into a hateful emotional response. The West Marin community expects and deserves better than this.

Ellen Shehadeh, Inverness

 

I think the video is cheesy, with narration that clearly intends to raise our anxiety levels. I would not take action based on seeing something like that. What also concerns me is whether Nancy and Kevin approved it before it was released. Does anyone know?

Lyons Filmer

 

While I have actually been in support of Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s attempt to renew their lease, I am horrified at the tone of the video. I think it is demeaning to all concerned and a real hit job which does no credit to the oyster company. It certainly has not made me support them more, rather the opposite. I am sorry the oyster company has sunk to that level to try and get their stance across to the general public. It reminds me of the most crass political ads we are sometimes subjected to.

Kathleen Goodwin

 

I do not support the video. I saw it as the paid political ad, the sleazy, smear hit piece that arrives just before election day from people who do not understand that the end does not justify the means. How much pain needs to be inflicted on a community and its individual members to achieve an end?

Carlos Porrata

 

I’ve watched the video at the link below, and I’d like to register my opinion. I had hoped that here in west Marin we could maintain a level of respect and discipline while dealing with tough controversy. Alas, those qualities are absent from this manipulative video, and I find its tone and editing rather frightening for that reason. I want us to do better. I absolutely do not endorse it. It fans emotional outrage rather than informed discussion. It’s also counterproductive; its effect on me was to make me want to NOT act as it recommended.

Janet Visick, Bolinas

 

I wrote a letter to rancher Kevin Lunny in 2005 saying that I supported continued oyster growing in Drakes’s Estero. I still wish that there might be a compromise position that would allow some oyster growing while also increasing Park protections. I believe that there are valid arguments on both sides of the oyster versus wilderness debate, and that honest debate is desirable.

But the video about the oyster company does not in any way resemble honest debate. With it’s ridiculing stop motion cartoon-like characterizations of Jon Jarvis, Sarah Allen and Don Neubacher, and with its totally one-sided presentation of issues, it can safely be characterized as malicious propaganda.

Those advocating for Drakes Bay Oyster Company such as Phyllis Faber, John Hulls, and Ken Fox may have been innocent parties to the video, not knowing the final result. But it’s hard to see how Dr. Corey Goodman, with his elevated position in the science world, could have innocently or accidentally lent his weight to such a scurrilous piece of work.

Richard Plant

 

The video establishes a new “low” in non-civil discourse and only does further damage to the community of West Marin. By mixing ostensibly factual comment (with which I happen to disagree, but that’s not the point) with patent misrepresentation of facts, embellished by inept and pointed cartooning, it manages to come off as tasteless at best. Very sad that otherwise well-intended people contributed to it.
Nona Dennis, President, Marin Conservation League, speaking as an individual

 

I am so weary of this hateful, divisive name calling. Only crass, uneducated Republican members of the House of Reps call people LIARS. I could hardly watch that video. It’s slanted, mean, biased, and not altogether honest.

Do you know who is responsible for such junk?

There ought to be a better way than this to solve our problems. I know most of the people involved, and think of them as basically decent citizens, until this ugly propaganda machine got rolling. I hope you can answer my questions.
 Pat Healy

Better Understanding the Marine Mammal Commission’s Concern

The Sierra Club appreciates the opportunity to continue to educate the public about harbor seals and the law and science of their protection. The Citizen Jan. 21 coverage of the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) reported, “Superintendent Don Neubacher declared-now retracted-that there was an 80 percent decline in the harbor seal population.”

This 80 percent number refers to a preliminary decline at one of the three key seal pup nursery sites, not, as The Citizen article implied, to a final decline in the overall seal population in Drakes Estero. Nevertheless, it is still cause for concern because the Marine Mammal Protection Act acknowledges the virtual impossibility of ever “proving” that a disturbance at any one site would cause an overall population effect. So the MMPA emphasizes a prohibition against changing the behavior of (disturbing) any seal, regardless of whether a cause-effect connection can be made to any decrease in overall population.

Furthermore, the 80 percent figure was never “retracted.” The figure was correct at the time of Dr. Sarah Allen’s statement because she was asked to provide an interim report to county supervisors in May of 2007 before the seal counts ended. Later counts showed the final reduction to be 65 percent, cause for concern because all but one of the human-caused disturbances recorded at the pupping areas in 2007 were caused by oyster operations. Correcting an interim 80 percent figure with a final 65 percent figure is a normal part of the scientific process; it is not a “retraction,” nor is it evidence of “fraud.”

The Marine Mammal Commission website includes hundreds of pages of newly revealed fraud accusations made to the National Academy of Sciences regarding NPS science and hundreds of pages of NPS responses to the charges, including a paper that corroborated this 80 percent reduction figure. The Sierra Club also commissioned an independent analysis that corroborated the 80 percent figure (both documents at ) The NAS concluded that no action on the charge of fraud regarding this 80 percent figure was warranted.

Similar accusations of fraud were made regarding NPS reports of DBOC boats flushing seals off sandbars that DBOC supporters calculated were underwater at the time of report. However, anyone who has had the pleasure of observing seals understands that seals begin to use their haulouts before the tide uncovers them and continue to use the haulouts after the tide has submerged them. Even if the tide calculation by the accusers was correct (it wasn’t, see MMC website May 1, 2009), it still took nothing away from the truthfulness of the reported disturbance. Again, the NAS concluded that no action on the charge of fraud regarding these submerged sandbars was warranted and furthermore included a photo demonstrating the seals using the submerged haulouts. 

Nevertheless, the debate about disturbances and site-specific impacts goes on. As DBOC’s comments on the MMC “Terms of Reference” make clear, they are claiming that seal populations are near carrying capacity, thus implying that their own disturbances or site-specific impacts don’t matter. Contradicting themselves, they also argue that everyone else’s disturbances do matter in the hope of disguising their impacts by blaming equestrians, kayakers and Park visitors.

But not all impacts count the same. In 2007, for example, NPS data showed pupping sites had about 27 disturbances from DBOC’s repeat offences. In contrast, non-pupping sites had about 48 accidental disturbances from a variety of sources. However, the National Academy pointed out that the precautionary protection of pupping sites is most important. Furthermore, there is simply no legitimacy to the implication of repeat offenders that they should not be required to stop until every last one of the accidental disturbances is stopped.

In fact, NPS data may understate impacts from the oyster operation on nursery sites. For example, NPS data does not count disturbances in water, nor seals deterred from hauling out, nor duration of disturbance. Furthermore, less tolerant seals may have already re-located and thus be uncounted as disturbed. Or mother seals may be counted as “undisturbed” because they are simply unwilling to divert nursing energy into relocating or have no other equally safe site to flee to. Seals, like people, are complicated animals.

Lastly, the seal population in the Estero may have reached its “carrying capacity” only because of the occupation of potential nursery sites by an oyster operation that is as large as its two next biggest competitors combined. So seals that are supposed to be protected in a National Park appear to be paying the price for bigger profits.

As for the seal nursery site violated by DBOC’s unauthorized clams, There is still no observed use by moms and it has now been 100 days and counting. Pupping season officially begins March 1.