Considering the complete history of ‘wilderness’ at Drakes ...€¦ · wilderness areas of...
1
There is a long history of disagreement over the meaning of wilderness; this is not a unique circumstance to the Drakes Estero conundrum. So to suggest that the meaning and intent of wilderness is clear and unam- biguous here, regardless of which “side” one is on, can only result from a selective (or cherry-picking) view of the history. I first got involved with this debate, back in 2007, because it seemed that the pro- wilderness side was doing just that: looking at a few sentences in isolation without con- sidering the broader record. It is that cherry- picking tendency that sharing my research here is intended to address. Carolyn Longstreth pointed out last week that the 1964 Wilderness Act pro- hibits commercial enterprises within wilderness areas – but Drakes Estero isn’t wilderness, it’s potential wilderness, man- aged as wilderness but with the oyster farm expressly allowed to remain as a non-con- forming use. No one has proposed remov- ing the “potential” status, so, like the High Sierra Camps located within potential wilderness areas of Yosemite National Park, there is no current conflict between the structures, or the use, and the designation. It is bit ironic that Longstreth quoted the then-NPS Director from his 1976 tes- timony about temporary uses in wilder- ness, because that testimony was given to argue against designating Drakes Estero as potential wilderness. Given that the oyster farm had been a fixture of the Estero for more than 50 years at that point, it was im- possible to see it as “temporary,” and that was part of the NPS’s reasoning for why that area shouldn’t be included in any des- ignation at all. It does not follow that, be- cause Congress ignored the NPS’s argument and went ahead with the poten- tial wilderness designation, that somehow the oyster farm is required to “become temporary.” (And there’s really no way of conceiving of a now 80-year use as tem- porary!) Longstreth also quotes from House Re- port 94-1680 (which was actually written before passage of the bill, not after as she states), which included a single sentence that refers to the “efforts to steadily con- tinue to remove all obstacles” to eventual wilderness conversion. In contrast, there are numerous sentences and statements else- where in the legislative record, as I dis- cussed in my last guest column, clearly stating an intention to allow the oyster farm to remain – and there is absolutely no ref- erence, anywhere, to allowing it to remain only until the reservation of use (RUO) ex- pires. To suggest that it is “plain” that everyone meant “only until the RUO ex- pires in 2012” is to put words in their mouths – and three of the legislators in question have recently assured the Interior Secretary that no such intention existed. How can Congress, written generically, have that intention if the sponsoring Con- gressional representatives did not? And there is no requirement to convert potential wilderness to “full” with any par- ticular speed. Even taking that single sen- tence literally, it still says nothing about the pace of removal, other than to say “steadily.” Considering that the following sentence in the same document directs the Park Service to remove the utility lines in the Muddy Hollow corridor “as promptly as possible,” it becomes clear that these are relative terms; it took the NPS 23 years, from 1976 to 1999, to accomplish that first assigned task. To remain on a steady pace, literally, the NPS has at least until 2022 to make the next change – and probably longer, since 23 years was “as promptly as possible.” And as the State of California still retains reserved rights in the Estero, confirmed by a letter from the Department of Fish and Game this past week, the oyster farm is not the only remaining obstacle to full wilderness designation. It is important to remember that the 1976 wilderness bill was the first Congres- sional use of the potential wilderness des- ignation, so to suggest that it had a well-understood, unambiguous meaning at the time is reading today’s values into the record. A second legislative report that ac- companied the bill, this one from the Sen- ate, made clear that many legislators were in fact uncomfortable with the designation: “The [Senate] Committee’s retention of the potential wilderness provisions contained in the House passed measure should not be construed to be an advocacy of this classi- fication by the Committee. Although the Committee understands the Department’s rationale for this legislative classification, the Committee reserves the right to ques- tion this procedure at future wilderness hearings.” Similarly, there is no clear consistent policy within the NPS today on conversion of potential wilderness to “full”; for exam- ple, the 1980 Yosemite General Manage- ment Plan stated, “The Ostrander ski hut and the High Sierra camps will be reclassi- fied as potential additions to wilderness. They will continue to be available for pub- lic use.” Just five years ago, an NPS official testified before Congress that Southern Cal- ifornia Edison could continue its use of a check dam for hydroelectric power within proposed potential wilderness in Sequoia- Kings Canyon “as long as it wants,” with no hints toward its steady or eventual re- moval on any time frame. Reading through the 1976 wilderness hearings, it appears that the primary inten- tion of insisting on potential wilderness sta- tus was to keep motorized vehicles out of the Estero. The Sierra Club’s representative testified, “The possibility of jeeps and mo- torcycles having access to the Estero shore and adjoining area is a frightening one.” Similarly, a letter from the Marin Conser- vation League specified, “MCL strongly urges inclusion in Wilderness of the quar- ter-mile strip of tidelands and Drake’s Es- tero. The fragile and important estero must have protection from recreational motor boats. The beaches must be protected from off-shore vehicles. We recommend con- trolled burns in the Bishop pines forest and Douglas fir forest and we do not object to the non-conforming use of the Johnson Oyster Co. operation in Drake’s Estero.” Furthermore, if one is to take the lan- guage from the 1964 Wilderness Act liter- ally regarding no commercial enterprises being allowed to enter or use wilderness, then all commercial pack trips, kayak guides, or photography workshops should be banned as well – these are all instances of one party commercially profiting from a use of wilderness. In addition, the cameras themselves should be left at the wilderness boundary, as the law bars any mechanical uses in wilderness; this is why mountain bikes are not allowed. One could argue that hiking, sight-seeing, and photography are passive rather than direct uses of the re- source, but the wilderness law does not make this distinction; and, what could be a more direct use than walking through a wilderness area and setting up camp for the night? As a society we tend to exempt recreational or tourist uses of places from the meaning of “use,” but they are uses, and are not free of impact; the Wilderness Act states that the “imprint of man’s work should be substantially unnoticeable,” yet trails are constructed and maintained by people for their own use, and are clearly no- ticeable across an open landscape. We will not solve the great debates over wilderness here at Point Reyes – and the decision about continuing the oyster farm does not represent a crucial precedent in the management of wilderness. While my book manuscript is not yet complete, I’m happy to share my research with whomever would like to examine the his- toric record more closely for themselves, so that they can reach their own conclu- sions about what it means. But we cannot take individual sentences or words from that record, and take them literally, without considering the entire historic record. Laura Watt is an associate professor of environmental studies and planning at Sonoma State University, specializing in en- vironmental policy. Citizen’s Forum Page 2 • West Marin Citizen • October 18, 2012 Herd Out West By Larken Bradley Couldn’t help but hear: “I don’t know if I liked it or if I want to slit my wrist. I could go either way.” –Moviegoer leaving a screening at the Mill Valley Film Festival last week to a friend waiting in line. ______________________ Citizen readers: When you hear or observe something amusing in West Marin, over the hill, while on vacation or a business trip or pe- rusing blogs, we want to join in the fun. E-mail submissions for publication to Larken Bradley at [email protected]. Or telephone: 454-3552. Please pro- vide your name, town and contact information for correct attribution. Advisory sign posted on western border of Tomales Bay Ecological Preserve. For more on the duck hunting flap, please see front page story and Letters on page 4. Citizen photo Considering the complete history of ‘wilderness’ at Drakes Estero By Laura Watt
Transcript of Considering the complete history of ‘wilderness’ at Drakes ...€¦ · wilderness areas of...
There is a long history of disagreementover the meaning of wilderness; this is nota unique circumstance to the Drakes Esteroconundrum. So to suggest that the meaningand intent of wilderness is clear and unam-biguous here, regardless of which “side”one is on, can only result from a selective(or cherry-picking) view of the history. Ifirst got involved with this debate, back in2007, because it seemed that the pro-wilderness side was doing just that: lookingat a few sentences in isolation without con-sidering the broader record. It is that cherry-picking tendency that sharing my researchhere is intended to address.
Carolyn Longstreth pointed out lastweek that the 1964 Wilderness Act pro-hibits commercial enterprises withinwilderness areas – but Drakes Estero isn’twilderness, it’s potential wilderness, man-aged as wilderness but with the oyster farmexpressly allowed to remain as a non-con-forming use. No one has proposed remov-ing the “potential” status, so, like the HighSierra Camps located within potentialwilderness areas of Yosemite National Park,there is no current conflict between thestructures, or the use, and the designation.
It is bit ironic that Longstreth quotedthe then-NPS Director from his 1976 tes-timony about temporary uses in wilder-ness, because that testimony was given toargue against designating Drakes Estero aspotential wilderness. Given that the oysterfarm had been a fixture of the Estero formore than 50 years at that point, it was im-possible to see it as “temporary,” and thatwas part of the NPS’s reasoning for whythat area shouldn’t be included in any des-ignation at all. It does not follow that, be-cause Congress ignored the NPS’sargument and went ahead with the poten-tial wilderness designation, that somehowthe oyster farm is required to “becometemporary.” (And there’s really no way ofconceiving of a now 80-year use as tem-porary!)
Longstreth also quotes from House Re-port 94-1680 (which was actually writtenbefore passage of the bill, not after as shestates), which included a single sentencethat refers to the “efforts to steadily con-
tinue to remove all obstacles” to eventualwilderness conversion. In contrast, there arenumerous sentences and statements else-where in the legislative record, as I dis-cussed in my last guest column, clearlystating an intention to allow the oyster farmto remain – and there is absolutely no ref-erence, anywhere, to allowing it to remainonly until the reservation of use (RUO) ex-pires. To suggest that it is “plain” thateveryone meant “only until the RUO ex-pires in 2012” is to put words in theirmouths – and three of the legislators inquestion have recently assured the InteriorSecretary that no such intention existed.How can Congress, written generically,have that intention if the sponsoring Con-gressional representatives did not?
And there is no requirement to convertpotential wilderness to “full” with any par-ticular speed. Even taking that single sen-tence literally, it still says nothing about thepace of removal, other than to say“steadily.” Considering that the followingsentence in the same document directs thePark Service to remove the utility lines inthe Muddy Hollow corridor “as promptlyas possible,” it becomes clear that these arerelative terms; it took the NPS 23 years,from 1976 to 1999, to accomplish that firstassigned task. To remain on a steady pace,literally, the NPS has at least until 2022 tomake the next change – and probablylonger, since 23 years was “as promptly aspossible.” And as the State of Californiastill retains reserved rights in the Estero,confirmed by a letter from the Departmentof Fish and Game this past week, the oysterfarm is not the only remaining obstacle tofull wilderness designation.
It is important to remember that the1976 wilderness bill was the first Congres-sional use of the potential wilderness des-ignation, so to suggest that it had awell-understood, unambiguous meaning atthe time is reading today’s values into therecord. A second legislative report that ac-companied the bill, this one from the Sen-ate, made clear that many legislators werein fact uncomfortable with the designation:“The [Senate] Committee’s retention of thepotential wilderness provisions containedin the House passed measure should not beconstrued to be an advocacy of this classi-fication by the Committee. Although theCommittee understands the Department’srationale for this legislative classification,the Committee reserves the right to ques-tion this procedure at future wildernesshearings.”
Similarly, there is no clear consistentpolicy within the NPS today on conversionof potential wilderness to “full”; for exam-ple, the 1980 Yosemite General Manage-ment Plan stated, “The Ostrander ski hutand the High Sierra camps will be reclassi-fied as potential additions to wilderness.They will continue to be available for pub-lic use.” Just five years ago, an NPS officialtestified before Congress that Southern Cal-ifornia Edison could continue its use of acheck dam for hydroelectric power withinproposed potential wilderness in Sequoia-Kings Canyon “as long as it wants,” withno hints toward its steady or eventual re-moval on any time frame.
Reading through the 1976 wildernesshearings, it appears that the primary inten-tion of insisting on potential wilderness sta-tus was to keep motorized vehicles out ofthe Estero. The Sierra Club’s representativetestified, “The possibility of jeeps and mo-torcycles having access to the Estero shoreand adjoining area is a frightening one.”Similarly, a letter from the Marin Conser-vation League specified, “MCL stronglyurges inclusion in Wilderness of the quar-ter-mile strip of tidelands and Drake’s Es-tero. The fragile and important estero musthave protection from recreational motorboats. The beaches must be protected fromoff-shore vehicles. We recommend con-trolled burns in the Bishop pines forest andDouglas fir forest and we do not object tothe non-conforming use of the JohnsonOyster Co. operation in Drake’s Estero.”
Furthermore, if one is to take the lan-guage from the 1964 Wilderness Act liter-ally regarding no commercial enterprisesbeing allowed to enter or use wilderness,then all commercial pack trips, kayakguides, or photography workshops should
be banned as well – these are all instancesof one party commercially profiting from ause of wilderness. In addition, the camerasthemselves should be left at the wildernessboundary, as the law bars any mechanicaluses in wilderness; this is why mountainbikes are not allowed. One could argue thathiking, sight-seeing, and photography arepassive rather than direct uses of the re-source, but the wilderness law does notmake this distinction; and, what could be amore direct use than walking through awilderness area and setting up camp for thenight? As a society we tend to exemptrecreational or tourist uses of places fromthe meaning of “use,” but they are uses, andare not free of impact; the Wilderness Actstates that the “imprint of man’s workshould be substantially unnoticeable,” yettrails are constructed and maintained bypeople for their own use, and are clearly no-ticeable across an open landscape.
We will not solve the great debates overwilderness here at Point Reyes – and thedecision about continuing the oyster farmdoes not represent a crucial precedent inthe management of wilderness. While mybook manuscript is not yet complete, I’mhappy to share my research withwhomever would like to examine the his-toric record more closely for themselves,so that they can reach their own conclu-sions about what it means. But we cannottake individual sentences or words fromthat record, and take them literally, withoutconsidering the entire historic record.
Laura Watt is an associate professor ofenvironmental studies and planning atSonoma State University, specializing in en-vironmental policy.
Citizen’s Forum
Page 2 • West Marin Citizen • October 18, 2012
Herd Out WestBy Larken Bradley
Couldn’t help but hear:
“I don’t know if I liked it or ifI want to slit my wrist. I couldgo either way.”
–Moviegoer leaving a screeningat the Mill Valley Film Festivallast week to a friend waiting inline.
______________________
Citizen readers: When you hear or
observe something amusing in
West Marin, over the hill, while on
vacation or a business trip or pe-
rusing blogs, we want to join in
the fun. E-mail submissions for
publication to Larken Bradley at
telephone: 454-3552. Please pro-
vide your name, town and contact
information for correct attribution.
Advisory sign posted on western border of Tomales Bay EcologicalPreserve. For more on the duck hunting flap, please see front page storyand Letters on page 4. Citizen photo
Considering the complete history of ‘wilderness’ at Drakes EsteroBy Laura Watt
