tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8240134129629411087.post8624969313946644096..comments2023-04-16T04:56:59.249-07:00Comments on From the Rivers: Life as a fisheries biologist: Oysters versus Wilderness: what’s the “right” choice?Kim Brewitthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14623356434372036778noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8240134129629411087.post-62581798739929366402014-02-27T18:52:29.385-08:002014-02-27T18:52:29.385-08:00Thanks for your comment -- I appreciate the discus...Thanks for your comment -- I appreciate the discussion. You make many good points, and I agree that people absolutely have a right to access to wilderness and natural seashore. <br /><br />The problem, as I see it, is one of trade-offs. In the case of Drake's Bay, I think we have to weigh the benefits of closing the oyster farm against the costs -- where will the oysters come from to fill that market niche? And at what environmental cost? If we don't farm them nearby San Francisco, but many San Franciscans still want to eat oysters, we will have to ship them in from farther away. They may not be grown in a National Seashore then -- but before we decide to close an already existing farm, I think the science needs to be more conclusive on the negative impacts of the oyster farming.<br /><br />National parks like Yosemite are "wilderness", yet we allow driving, mule trains, camping/campfires, buildings etc. Where do we draw the line? There are also many private homes in Yosemite that were grandfathered in, and are still under private ownership -- while I agree we should not allow a new oyster farm to be built in a National Seashore, we should perhaps consider allowing one that was already there to stay, if it is providing significant benefits in other ways. <br /><br />As I see it, we need a range of parks -- some for pure preservation (no/few people), some for recreation and connection to nature (like our National Parks), and some multi-use areas where, either because of history or other circumstances, we try to balance land conservation with other uses (such as oyster farming). Which parks get what designation is a matter for debate, and may be quite subjective. However, I think that we need to find a better balance between conservation and our many other needs, whether it be for recreation or cultivating food resources. And it many not be an all-or-nothing answer.Kim Brewitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14623356434372036778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8240134129629411087.post-9880721349808374092014-02-24T13:36:20.658-08:002014-02-24T13:36:20.658-08:00As time marches on, and our ideas of coexistence w...As time marches on, and our ideas of coexistence with nature march with it, the need to protect a few isolated areas as wilderness seems key. These areas allow us a timeless view into what natural habitats may be in the absence of permanent human occupancy. We can then use these observations to inform our policy about the use of the majority of our lands, which do not have such protections.<br /><br />In regards to providing for the needs of the people, what about those who wish for the existence of a natural seashore on our country's west coast? Do they not have a right to their values? Was it not also their tax dollars and the tax dollars of their ancestors that helped pay for this land? Yes, we need to provide jobs for millions of people, but the creation of this Seashore deprives just a few dozen of them. On the other hand, this area would be the only marine wilderness for those tax payers who value such a resource. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com