Oyster farming has been conducted in the Drakes Estero (named for Sir Francis Drake who landed there in 1579) for thousands of years since the times of the first nations. In the early 1800s, Mexican land grantees established rancheros, and since then waves of American agricultural operations have continued to operate in the area.
In 1962 the Drakes Estero became part of a national seashore pursuant to an act of Congress. The over 8,000 acres surrounding the Drakes Estero and the Pacific Ocean shoreline were purchased by the federal government in 1972. The existing oyster operation at that time was granted a permit to operate from the federal government and did so for the next 40 years. In 2004, DBOC purchased the previous oyster operation and began to sustainably farm and harvest oysters at the site, taking over the lease and the permit.
Well, it looks like the defendant's own historical account of the company shows the current defendant wasn't the owner till 2004, and didn't get the lease and permits till then, and the government has owned that land since 1972. Since that time, that land has been leased out by the government, but it's still government land, and that company has no right to complain. If a landowner wasn't to stop leasing, that's their right. Private companies making a profit off public lands is a deal many would love to have, but only a select few get that opportunity. Sure, it's a land move by the government. Look at where it is! Bay-area land is super expensive, and I bet the company had a really cheap lease that allowed them to, by their own admission, to nearly corner the oyster market in that area.
For each of the past three years, DBOC has been responsible for anywhere from thirty to forty percent of the state’s oyster production;
The Bay-area serves a mega ton load of seafood, and ONE company had taken 30-40 per cent of the market in the last 3 years? Hmm. Sounds fishy.
And it appears they are playing games with time as well. They start the article claiming this is a 80 year old company, yet the article later says the current company took over the lease and permits in 2004. Which is it? Has this "Drakes Bay" been in business literally for 80 years? Who are they? And who did they take over the lease and permits from? If Drakes has been in business there, how is that possible if another company has had the lease and permits?
Too many questions this plea article avoids.
I realize it's a defense tactic, but this sounds like big business is whining they got their sweet deal taken away. I'd like to see the permit and lease numbers they had.
There most likely are generations of people that have worked there over the years, but those are the workers, not the owners. Are any former/current long-time workers part of this Drakes Bay company ownership? Is it a private family-owned business that went corporate in 2004?
