Politics stalked the national park system throughout 2007. From snowmobiles in Yellowstone to off-road vehicles in Big Cypress, it seemed natural resources and careful stewardship were trumped too often.
We heard both National Park Service Director Mary Bomar and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne promise that science and careful stewardship would rule the national parks, and yet it seemed those promises fell short.
Not all the news surrounding the parks was negative, though. Congress approved President Bush's hefty funding increase for the parks, the National Park Foundation held a summit to explore partnership and philanthropy in the parks, and the Centennial Challenge was launched.
That said, here's a look at some of the top stories that rippled across the national park system in 2007:
-
Yellowstone snowmobiles. Despite scientific reports that detailed how snow coaches were the best alternative for Yellowstone's environment, wildlife, employees and visitors, park Superintendent Suzanne Lewis approved a plan to allow as many as 540 snowmobiles per day into Yellowstone. That decision, which conservation groups have promised to test in court, could have consequences far beyond Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks as I noted back in November.
Rick Smith, of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, speaks of decision (1:00)
Get the Flash Player to heard this audio. -
Fran Mainella points finger at Interior Department. A year after leaving her job as director of the National Park Service, Fran Mainella told the Traveler that Interior Department officials, not her office, called the shots on allowing snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park.
Fran Mainella talks to the 'Traveler' (4:34)
Get the Flash Player to see hear the audio. -
Jet skis. Conservation groups asked the Park Service to reinstate bans against personal watercraft in Gulf Islands and Cape Lookout national seashores as well as Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. If the agency balks, the groups say they'll take it to court over the matter.
-
ORVs in Big Cypress National Preserve. A decision by Big Cypress Superintendent Karen Gustin to reopen 20 miles of off-road vehicle routes was greeted by a lawsuit just before Christmas when a coalition of groups filed a lawsuit to overturn that decision.
-
Katmai Bear Hunt. A groundswell of public outrage greeted the annual hunt of brown bears in Katmai National Preserve. Though hunting technically is allowed in the preserve, the seeming habituation of bears to humans created the impression that the bear hunt was akin to "shooting fish in a barrel" and prompted calls for the Park Service to end the hunt. Watch Video
-
Park Service budget. President Bush proposed, and Congress approved, a hefty funding increase for the National Park Service. True, the $2.39 billion FY08 budget cannibalizes some sections of the agency's budget so its base operations funding will rise $153.4 million. But an increase is an increase.
-
Centennial Challenge. In his fiscal 2008 budget request, President Bush proposed a Centennial Challenge with visions of infusing $3 billion, in a mix of public and private funding, into the park system as the National Park Service moves towards its centennial in 2016. Though controversial on several fronts, and falling short of his 2000 campaign promise to spend $5 billion to wipe out the Park Service's maintenance backlog, the initiative gained congressional approval, though not exactly as the president requested it.
Kempthorne Announces Centennial Projects; Podcast (10:50)
Get the Flash Player to see hear the audio. -
National Park Foundation Leadership Summit on Partnership and Philanthropy. Private philanthropy long has played a crucial role in the construction and health of the national park system. To explore how philanthropy and partnerships can bolster the parks as they head to the National Park Service's centennial in 2016, the National Park Foundation in October convened a summit in Austin, Texas, to examine the possibilities.
NPS Director Mary Bomar addresses Leadership Summit (1:45)
Get the Flash Player to hear this audio. -
The Demise of the National Parks Pass. This much-loved $50 pass, which got its holder into as many parks as they wanted for a year, died on January 1 when the $80 America the Beautiful Pass came to be. However, congressional efforts towards the end of 2007 could spur the return of the National Parks Pass.
-
Climate Change. In a telling report, the Government Accountability Office said the Interior Department has failed to provide the National Park Service with the tools it needs to cope with climate change and its impacts on the national park system.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
Zebulon may have identified an element of this debate that applies not only to this issue, but to the broader question of wilderness and other official designations for natural areas:
" I find more wilderness in seeing human living in harmony with nature than in the modern day museum pretend wilderness that the NPS is selling us."
Are the already sometimes subtle differences between "wilderness," "wildness" and "natural areas" becoming increasingly blurred in the minds of more and more people in today's society? The answer has important implications in lots of areas: legally, politically and practically for public land management.
I'm thinking of what might have happened from a practical view if the California Fish and Game commission hadn't attached a valid federal reservation as a condition for the validity of the water bottom lease. Certainly NPS thought that once they ended the federal reservation, the waters of Drakes Estero would become full wilderness. Of course they were also pushing for Johnson's state lease to end before 2012.
And frankly having a shore operation right there was the only thing that made any economic sense. That included fuel for the boats and keeping the boats where they would be less likely to pick up hitchhikers. I remember reading the oyster farm's response to the DEIS noted that they minimized invasive species introduction because they had the only motor boats, and that a more likely source for invasives would be the recreational kayakers and clam diggers who didn't properly clean their equipment.
I agree 100%. What a weird society we live in when it comes to these issues.
I think these trivial victories for the Wilderness purists are pyrrhic and I predict they're going to result in one big ultimate defeat someday. Their purists' numbers are already dwindling and eventually there won't be enough octogenarian white people left to sustain the political base the Wilderness Act needs to continue in its current form. The Act will totter along on autopilot until some event precipitates a crisis—perhaps, for example, China will cut off our supply of rare earths and someone will have noticed there's a big neodymium or dysprosium deposit in some Wilderness somewhere. The extractive industries will move in after getting the Act reformed over minimal political resistance, since the purists will have succeeded in creating a society in which few know what a Wilderness is and fewer still will ever have visited one.
So, imtnbke and Zeb, should we open up the shores of Yellowstone Lake to resorts? Think how wonderful it would be to have a nice lodge to retreat to on the Promontory after a day spent water skiing (with a wet suit, of course).
Should the Sawtooth Wilderness in Idaho be cut through with roads so we can better access the backcountry lakes? Maybe do the same with the Russian Wilderness in California, only for four-wheeler access? They deserve recreation in the great outdoors, too, no?
I fear your approach to how wilderness should be managed would be detrimental to the nation as a whole and individuals personally. We need these places not only for muscle-powered recreation and the solitude they offer, but also for the rejuvenation and personal reflection that can be achieved beyond the reach of today's "civilized" world.
And don't forget what they provide in terms of vital wildlife habitat, air-cleansing forests, and natural ground-water filtration systems.
The "harmony" you describe can already be found in many parts of the country in the form of national and state forests, Bureau of Land Management areas, Bureau of Reclamation recreation areas, Fish and Wildlife refuges, even within National Park Service Heritage areas "where natural, cultural, and historic resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally important landscape."
There's no need to stake similar claims in every inch of the wild country. As has been pointed out many times before on the Traveler, officially designated wilderness represents just a fraction of the public landscape -- 109,501,440 acres, or roughly 5 percent of the entire nation's landmass. And roughly half of that wilderness is in Alaska, far out of reach for most Americans.
Climb the mountains and get their good tidings, Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. As age comes, one source of enjoyment after another is closed, but nature's sources never fail. -- John Muir
For the nth time, that 5% is not relevant. The percentage of open spaces currently designed as wilderness is closer to 20% or 30%, not exactly an immaterial percentage.
I don't also don't buy the slippery slope that allowing an oyster farm in the estrero will lead to doom all around the country wilderness. Anyhow, it does not matter. The NPS is going to get its wilderness (at least their imaginary construct representation of it) and 30 poor souls will lose their jobs.
That's a far different argument than what anyone is making. As it stands now, existing mining claims are still valid even if an area becomes designated as wilderness. Death Valley NP still has 29 valid mining claims that could be exercised.
And frankly, Grant Village was built near Yellowstone Lake in my lifetime. Of course that's not designated wilderness.
The key to the oyster farm was that it was an existing business. I remember seeing a report on the proceedings that led to the potential wilderness status, and a great many organizations and people supported the continuation of the oyster farm as something compatible with the natural surroundings. You're not going to many similar preexisting uses.
Zeb and y_p_w, my response was more focused on imtnbke's position that the Wilderness Act's "purists' numbers are already dwindling and eventually there won't be enough octogenarian white people left to sustain the political base the Wilderness Act needs to continue in its current form."
Slippery slopes do exist, even if you don't want to believe in them. As you might recall, in the uproar over bike racing through Colorado National Monument, a former superintendent of Shenandoah mentioned that the folks behind the Tour de Trump bike race had pointed to instances where parks had allowed bike racing (I believe he referenced the citizen's ride through Colorado Monument) in a bid to gain approval for using the Skyline Drive.
Hi, Kurt —
I think we don't disagree on that much. I would like to see conservation succeed and so would you. It's only that I think the current model needlessly alienates some people and renders many more indifferent. For that reason, it puts conservation at risk in the medium or long run.
If I might address a few of your points . . .
Since I haven't been there, I don't know the answer. It seems that the national parks have a number of luxury hotels as it is. Would it be better to get rid of them? I don't know the answer to that either.
What I'm trying to say is that it is current Wilderness policy that makes this scenario all the more likely someday. If no critical mass of people are aware of what Wilderness offers, it's hard to imagine support for it in 50 years if some national need presents itself for, e.g., resource extraction, in the places you name.
I agree with that in all respects, except that, having seen the mess that commercial and government pack trains make, I favor human power, not muscle power. But if these places are lost, then no rejuvenation and personal reflection will be achieved in them. It seems to me that the oyster controversy is an excellent warning sign of what may be impending. Places that have been artifically purified of any human endeavor other than maybe walking may soon have no constituency as a result.
Keep in mind that the national parks and Wilderness overall are separate issues, even though about half of the national park territory is also Wilderness. The national park acreage is small and virtually everyone agrees those acres benefit from a high degree of preservation. Wilderness is much larger and more controversial. We're all aware of the gauzy phrase that the national parks are "America's best idea." That may be an overstatement—perhaps the American-invented Internet would rival it for pride of place—but it has to be one of the best ones, because it's been emulated worldwide. No country I know of has emulated our Wilderness policies. That should be instructive to us.
My issue is that in all of this, there seem to be favorites - that the NPS/Interior policy makers and Superintendents pick their winners and losers, and little of it really seems to have anything to do with wilderness ideals.
I also visit our designated wilderness areas and see the tons of exceptions that have been carved out over the years in fully designated wilderness as well as areas that remain potential wilderness at the decision of those policy makers I mention. I know that the dams and fire roads were grandfathered in. I've climbed up and down the Half Dome cables. I also remember that huge outhouse at Little Yosemite Valley. I'm wondering how that fits into wilderness ideals. I mention these exceptions because it seems that somehow someone managed to find a middle ground rather than an absolute.
The issue I have is that Kurt has taken an editorial position that the oyster farm needs to go because it was always slated for that as potential wilderness. In the meanwhile, he's written glowing articles encouraging people to visit the Yosemite High Sierra Camps. Those articles don't mention their potential wilderness status, their maintenance backlog, the various "nonconforming uses", the commercial pack trains that supply the camps, the helicopters brought in to service the waste disposal, etc.
And there will be no way Drakes Estero will be free from serious human derived impacts (beyond the human propelled boating) until they remove those ranches and stop allowing recreational clam digging on the shoreline. It might technically be a wilderness because those thing happen just outside some dotted lines on a map, but the effect is that it's hardly a wilderness with unregulated vehicle noise on Sir Francis Drake Blvd and all those activities outside Drakes Estero mucking things up.
It's also going to be interesting what happens to the oyster farm location. I've read some say this is a victory for kayakers. It won't be if NPS decides to stop maintaining the road. I wouldn't be surprised if making it harder for kayakers to access Drake Estero wasn't part of the plan all along.
Anyone who has followed my history here knows I'm not a lassez-faire anti-government crusader. I question why anyone needs to drive on a beach. Although I own a couple of mountain bikes, I'm actually quite OK that NPS has few areas where they're allowed. I have no issues with closures when they serve to protect threatened or endangered species. I've been accused of all sorts of things, including being a paid shill for the oyster farm (never even met Kevin Lunny) or an anti-government type.
I know some people thought of the oyster farm as some decrepit looking buildings mostly Hispanic workers. Frankly - that's what a real oyster operation looks like.
Point Reyes NS is extremely special to me. With the exit of the oyster farm, it's going to be a little bit less special.
I'd be the first to agree that the National Park System is frought with exceptions to this and that, and that superintendents in one park will come down on an issue differently from those in another.
It also can't be overlooked that Congress holds large sway in many park decisions. The reason there's no officially designated wilderness in Glacier or Yellowstone national parks, just to name two iconic parks that lack designated wilderness, is due to the failure of the congressional delegations from Montana and Wyoming to pen wilderness legislation.
As to where the Traveler stands on the Drakes Bay Oyster Co., we have tried to stick to citing the existing wilderness legislation dating to 1976, and the interpretations that have descended from it. Any review of our stories will turn up articles critical of both the NPS and the oyster farm, as well as articles that might be interpreted as favorable to both.
As to the High Sierra Camps in Yosemite, I'm not sure we've ever written "glowingly" of them, as we've never stayed in them. That said, perhaps a look at those operations and where they lie in context to wilderness would be worth the time investment. But is anyone pushing to have them removed? That's an angle that would justify the time.
Without checking, if memory serves me well I believe the Traveler did question the use of a helicopter for hauling building materials to a cabin site within designated wilderness in Sequoia NP, and also perhaps Katmai.
The bottom line is that there are 398 units in the park system, and only one full-time writer/editor at the Traveler. Plus, there is a timely news element to what's ongoing at Drakes Estero, so naturally our editorial calendar will include more items tied to that than to the High Sierra Camps.
You'e done incredibly well, Kurt! I mean seriously, continually to bring different facets of the arguments from very knowledgable and passionate contributors. Personally, I hope the conversation results eventually in something real and not just ideology played out that neuters the real value to the culture. Rock On, Kurt:)!
Absolutely there are people who are asking to have the High Sierra Camps removed. Here are the public comments on the Vogelsang HSC backcountry utilities maintenance project:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/VBCU_30-36.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/VBCU_49-64.pdf
http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/VBCU_65-66.pdf
I'd include all of them, but several links are broken. In particular, comment 53 is from Yvon Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia, Inc. and a well known wilderness advocate. I haven't had a chance to go over all the comments, but they seem to be overwhelmingly against the HSCs. Most call for at least no going through with an expensive maintenance project, while others call for the HSCs to be completely removed.
I'd buy that you've got no editorial position per se if you didn't publish Neal Desai's piece on why they oyster farm must go without a counterpoint piece. I'm sure you could have gotten at least one of Peter Gleick, Pete McCloskey, Corey Goodman, etc to write a piece if you'd just asked.
While often disagreeing, I certainly enjoy and appreciate the NPT.
I second that.
Kurt, I agree with you that it's too bad the wilderness legislation isn't more clearly written. When I read it, I was amazed at how vague the language is.
However, I don't share your view that Interior is a trustworthy source on this matter; they have a conflict of interest here. I have a hard time understanding why you believe their lawyers more than you believe Burton, Bagley, and McCloskey, who were there at the time.
Senator Feinstein's staff looked into the history when she was asked by the County Supervisors to get involved. I don't think she would have proceeded to support the oyster farm's continuation if that search had found any evidence that the oyster farm was not meant to continue.
Local historian and environmental law expert Laura Watt has done a lot of research about this in the course of her thesis work and upcoming book on Point Reyes. She finds no record of any intent to eliminate the oyster farm. There's a summary in her article here: http://www.marinij.com/ci_7495904
So, what's going on with the extremes? They going to win another one?
Trailadvocate, of course they will. That little farm is no match for the NPS and its army of lawyers. The environuts got their new idyllic seashore whey they can go and revel in this new monument to environmentalism that "protects" another piece of pristine environment. The whole thing is so inane and devoid of common sense that it's scary.
"So, what's going on with the extremes?"
Which extreme do you mean? There seem to be at least two of them out there.
Yeah Lee - real extreme to want to keep a few acres out of 71,000 for an Oyster Operation that has been there for decades.
Lee won't be happy until every single acre of open space becomes wilderness and is fenced off so that humans can't disturb the pristine wild landscape. :)
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/a-park-an-oyster-farm-and-scie...
TA, great article. The "environmentalists" are an interesting bunch. First, they put out of work 30 people, and then want to give them a measly $5000 to help out. But clearly, being able to put a label on a few acres of coast line was more important than people's livelihood.
Edited to play nice.
C'mon, Zeb, no need to use disparaging tags.
Regarding trailadvocate's link above, Felicity Barringer is an excellent New York Times reporter. Unlike many (in fact most) environmental reporters, she hasn't allowed her presumed immersion in the culture of orthodox environmentalism to taint her ability to report accurately. To use the vernacular, she hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid, and that is rare among environmental journalists.
So it's instructive that she accurately identifies the Point Reyes oyster farm ouster as the product of an environmentalist temperance crusade. Particularly noteworthy is this language in her column:
"On the linguistic front, two adjectives were repeatedly wielded by wilderness advocates in pressing their case. The estuary was deemed 'pristine,' with all those connotations of purity, even though people have been working there in one way or another for 100 years. It was also called 'iconic,' as if a small Northern California inlet were sacred to a vast number of people. (One wilderness advocate has repeatedly called it 'a church.')
"The oyster farm was predictably described as 'industrial' and 'commercial,' as if it were a giant factory, not a modest mariculture business."
We mountain bikers hear the same overheated rhetoric from wilderness advocates.
In fact, more and more they're starting to remind me of Islamist fanatics. The Wilderness purists want to drive out oyster farms, bicycles, baby strollers, and historical structures like a lookout in Washington state. Of the latter effort, the National Trust for Historic Preservation wrote:
"A small group of wilderness advocates have made it their mission to erase the imprint of human culture in wilderness areas, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation is pushing back." Source: http://blog.preservationnation.org/2012/04/02/federal-court-orders-remov...
The only inaccuracy in that quotation is the reference to a "small group" of such individuals. The desire to purge Wilderness is rife among a large swath of Wilderness preachers.
It's markedly similar to the Taliban's religiously inspired mission to wipe out anything that it sees as un-Islamic, such as the historical Buddhist carvings in Afghanistan and, in recent weeks, Al Qaeda's destruction of important historical structures in Mali:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/world/africa/mali-shrines-destroyed/index....
One thing is for sure: the Wilderness strict constructionists are amassing enemies left and right. When the National Trust for Historic Preservation has become fed up with their messianic crusades, you know they're going to face headwinds in the future.
I disagree, imtnbke, that it's fine and dandy to use disparaging tags to identify either groups or individuals. That's one of the approaches, I believe, that has led to all the divisiveness in the country. People seem to have forgotten how to be courteous and respectful.
It long has been the policy of the Traveler to accept any and all comments -- as long as they're presented in a constructive approach without demeaning or attacking another individual. You don't have to agree with their position. But we certainly expect one and all to approach discussions with a modicum of respect. If necessary, please reread our Code of Conduct.
If that's not possible, than I would suggest you refrain from commenting.
Hi, Kurt --
I see all sorts of sharp-tongued dialogue on NPT and as long as it doesn't get too insulting, I don't find it objectionable. I gather that you dislike one term that I used in my reply. I see nothing wrong with it, but since it could prove a distraction, allowing people to focus on me rather than the point I'm trying to make, I'll edit my comment to use a less direct noun. (For others' reference, we're not talking about profanity here or anything close, but rather an acerbic term that people use to refer to Wilderness advocates with strict views.)
Kurt, I believe these folks are who Zeb and imtnbke could be referring to. The dialogue is extreme, I believe.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/07/1168079/-Dear-Progressive-Bay-A...
A federal court is holding this morning a hearing on the oyster farm's application for a preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of Secretary Salazar's decision to close it.
The San Francisco Daily Journal legal newspaper has a fine article in yesterday's edition (Jan. 24) on the legal maneuvering and various legal experts' views on the farm's chances of success.
Unfortunately, the Daily Journal doesn't make its content public. (See http://www.dailyjournal.com/.) But if you live in California, you can stop by the local law library at your county courthouse or law school and read the article there. Or if you have a friend who's a lawyer, he/she may have a subscription and will let you read the article.
Most recent action on Drake Bay Oyster Co's efforts to continue operations.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130125/COMMUNITY/130129704/1042/o...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/26/drakes-bay-court_n_2557423.html
The latest San Francisco Daily Journal article, from yesterday, suggests that the Federal District Court judge in Oakland, Calif., is likely to rule in the government's favor, based on her questions and comments at the hearing this week.
The interesting thing will be to see what the government will do in a couple months when the oyster racks are still there. From what I read, it would take two years for the company to remove all of it. What a cluster..
Presumably government lawyers helped write the oyster farm's lease agreement, and if they were thinking ahead, they will have specified in the lease that the farm owner bears the costs of eventual removal of the infrastructure. But perhaps the owner will declare bankruptcy and walk away from the expense.
I read that this impending closure is going to reduce California oyster production by about 40%. I suppose people in Prince Edward Island and Puget Sound will be happy.
Presumably government lawyers helped write the oyster farm's lease agreement, and if they were thinking ahead, they will have specified in the lease that the farm owner bears the costs of eventual removal of the infrastructure. But perhaps the owner will declare bankruptcy and walk away from the expense.Such language is in the reservation of use signed in 1972. I really doubt that they could just walk away. I doubt the farm is set up as an LLC, but I could be wrong. Kevin and Nancy Lunny operate the G Ranch at Point Reyes, and they have lots of assets. I doubt they would simply walk away. However, it sound like they'd like to exhaust all avenues before tearing things down. If they tear it down there's really no going back.
I'd think an interesting possibility would be that there will be a new Secretary of the Interior. The new Secretary might conceivably override Salazar's decision. I'm not sure how this might sit with the law, but who knows what is and isn't legal.
Overriding Salazar's decision would be a positive. Either by Salazar himself or the incumbent Secretary of Interior. Considering how PC rules, it wouldn't surprise me if the most considered qualification is that it be a women. Consideration for those 30 jobs and a century of tradition of which the Bay area has grown to appreciate in a multiple of ways, would be a low percentage bet but I will remain hopeful.
Personally having been a part of an intimate relationship with things wild from serious Bering Sea storms with no refuge to leading first time adventurers (old and new) into the wilds of our Parks I truly believe the trend to seperate people from witnessing and experiencing places like Drakes Bay whether it be working the Oyster Beds or just seeing it in operation is a loss in many ways.
This from Earth Island Journal. In Defense of Drakes Bay Oyster Co.
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/in_defense_...
Pages