Oceans

How The Feds Lied to Help Kill an Oyster Business in California

|

Michael Ames at Newsweek has an interesting tale of how the federal government helps environmentalists crush the oystering industry, even with scant evidence that oystering is hurting the environment in a meaningful way. Dianne Feinstein comes out as a hero of private business in this one.

PetitPlat—Stephanie Kilgast / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

Excerpts:

the DOI and its National Park Service spent much of the past decade using scientifically unsound, and at times bizarre, tactics to prove the oyster farm had to go. "The Park Service has falsified and misrepresented data, hidden science and even promoted employees who knew about the falsehoods, all in an effort to advance a predetermined outcome against the oyster farm," [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein [defending her constituents in a particular oyster farm north of San Francisco] wrote to then-secretary of the interior Ken Salazar in March 2012. "It is my belief that the case against Drakes Bay Oyster Company is deceptive and potentially fraudulent."

The Park Service wanted that oyster farm out, and were overzealous in service of that desire:

Feinstein called on the NAS to conduct an external review of the Park Service's environmental studies. The resulting report concluded that Park Service scientists, in setting out to prove the farm was causing environmental harm, had "selectively presented, over-interpreted, or misrepresented the available scientific information" and "exaggerated the negative and overlooked potentially beneficial effects of the oyster culture operation."

For example, when they saw seal numbers dropping, scientists made targeted assumptions about the oyster farm that ignored critical variables, such as nosy kayakers and shifting sandbars. Such limited data, the NAS said, "cannot be used to infer cause and effect." Ultimately, the NAS "conclude[d] that there is a lack of strong scientific evidence that shellfish farming has major adverse ecological effects on Drakes Estero."

Environmentalists painted the oyster farm as an "ecological disaster" but it is Ames's conclusion, in his well-reported story, that there was insufficient real evidence for that, and that the agencies wanting to get rid of oystering there even concealed some photographic evidence that belied the notion that oyster operations were harassing or damaging the seals. Both Department of Interior and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports Ames cites agree with the notion that the seal threat was overstated or false.

But the USGS, study author Brent Stewart told Ames, actively changed his findings in order to harm the oyster industry:

when the USGS published its final report that November, Stewart discovered that his findings had been altered and that the study reached conclusions his research directly contradicted. "It's clear that what I provided to them and what they produced were different conclusions and different values," says Stewart. "In science, you shouldn't do that."

For example, the USGS had deleted his words "no evidence of disturbance" for one date, and in its analysis stated that two disturbances "were associated with boat activity"—despite Stewart's study that showed otherwise. Strangely, USGS went back to Stewart months later and asked him to double-check his work on two dates in particular. He did as requested and reiterated his findings, but even this did not alter the final report's inaccuracies. In its Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Park Service took this alteration one step further by implying causation between the boats and the seals, something Stewart had explicitly ruled out. Eventually, this Impact Statement would beused by Department of Justice lawyers in their arguments against Lunny [the oyster company operator] before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Stewart told his contacts at the USGS that their report had errors and asked if he could correct them. "The response I got was, 'No, it's done. It can't be changed.' That was a bit shocking."

The whole long story is well worth a read, and casts shade on how government will misuse science to support preconceived notions about how human industry and protected portions of the environment should interact.

NEXT: Oklahoma Man Cleared of Charges After Shooting Police Chief Three Times in the Chest, Didn't Know Cops Were Invading His Home

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Dianne Feinstein comes out as a hero of private business in this one.

    What what what? /Sheila Brovlovsky voice.

    I am glad to see this running in Newsweek. Most people think that the EPA, DOI and other fed gov agencies are necessary and the people that work for them act solely in the public interest and in good faith.

    Then again, this is just one of a million stories, and yet I bet most people think they are just “bad apples”, a la the stories about our friends in blue.

    1. Feinstein hardly comes off as a good apple –

      “[Sen. Dianne] Feinstein [defending her constituents in a particular oyster farm north of San Francisco]”

      It’s just cronyism, she’s protecting her constituents, not private business. She wouldn’t have given a shit if it was in someone else’s district.

      1. If it were in someone else’s district, she would 100% be on the side of the EPA.

  2. “The Park Service has falsified and misrepresented data, hidden science and even promoted employees who knew about the falsehoods,

    We are talking about an Oyster farm, and not a Global Warming study, right?

  3. The irony is of course that oysters are a great natural filter. An oyster farm helps the environment and yet the Park Service was trying to kill it.

    1. I’m still reading the article, but I suspect what the Park Service was trying to kill, was the fact someone, somewhere was making a dollar from it. And that someone wasn’t on a GS scale.

      1. Paul.|1.21.15 @ 4:27PM|#
        “I’m still reading the article, but I suspect what the Park Service was trying to kill, was the fact someone, somewhere was making a dollar from it. And that someone wasn’t on a GS scale.”

        You can follow the entire mess through the local (SF) papers, and, yes, it seems that having a “business” in a Nat’l Park was abhorrent to the luddite rangers.

  4. Stewart told his contacts at the USGS that their report had errors and asked if he could correct them. “The response I got was, ‘No, it’s done. It can’t be changed.’ That was a bit shocking.”

    “No, it wasn’t.”

  5. Oh, and say what you will about Dianne Feinstein, she’s many, many horrible things, but she’s never struck me as being particularly anti-commerce. At least in a very general way. She doesn’t sleep on silk sheets and have a jet-setting husband glad-handing around the Globe, or act very jumpy when US/China relations become fragile because she’s anti-business.

    1. but she’s never struck me as being particularly anti-commerce.

      Unless you’re in the business of supplying personal defense products.

      1. Exactly, that would fall under the many, many horrible things.

    2. She loves business just so long as it can be regulated, taxes and provide as much graft and protection money as possible.

  6. This is all very nice, but until we have the names of the feds who lied on some indictments, we got nothin’.

    1. Reasonable mistakes were made. Additional training to be required.

      1. Sensitivity training.

    2. What, you think they’ll be prosecuted or fired? LOL.

  7. We’re a BANANA Republic

    Build
    Absolutely
    Nothing
    Anywhere
    Near
    Anything

    BANANA

    One of the few clever things Tom Friedman has ever written.

  8. Dianne Feinstein comes out as a hero of private business in this one.

    barf

  9. I don’t think people on the west coast know what oysters are. I ordered a half dozen of ’em in Portland, years ago. They were they size of nickels. I think I paid $6 for a half dozen. THE SIZE OF NICKELS, I am not exaggerating.

    1. I live near Portland. Ain’t never seen an oyster that small. I don’t think people who make sweeping generalizations based on single, isolated data sets know what logic is.

  10. Every time I’m in Marin I see “Save Our Drakes Bay Oyster Farm” signs, some of them handmade, still up. But I’ll bet the area still votes overwhelmingly for Democrats, because the Republicans and Libertarians want to destroy the planet, don’t you know.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.