By The Tribune-Review
Published: Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012, 8:56 p.m.
Error-riddled “science” used as the bogus basis for ruining a Northern California organic oyster-farm business is beyond outrageous.
National Review Online details the struggles of Marin County's Lunny family, their Drakes Bay Oyster Co. and 30-plus employees against the National Park Service and Interior Department, which want the farm for a wilderness area.
The National Academy of Sciences' Corey Goodman, a Stanford and Berkeley professor emeritus, has spent five years probing federal misconduct against the Lunnys.
He says the feds have made false claims contradicting prior state and federal environmental studies of the farm, misrepresented data, enlisted extremists to echo their slant, violated federal law on public comment — and even asserted that specific authorization for extending the farm's lease permits by 10 years, added to a 2009 appropriations bill by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., enables Interior to shutter the business.
Accusing the Park Service and Interior of “a stunning misuse of science” and following “a predetermined agenda,” not the data, Mr. Goodman says they've “spent a huge amount of money trying to find harm when it doesn't exist.”
Contending they're being deprived of their property without due process, the Lunnys are taking their fight to court, where they deserve to prevail. If they don't, Goodman warns, a precedent favoring perversion of science for extreme environmentalism's sake — an Obama administration hallmark — could be set.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- Market perversions: Chrysler retreats
- The market speaks: Cadillac dealers reject another electric folly