National Parks and Commerce

In The New York Times article, Debate Flares on Limits of Nature and Commerce in Parks, by Heidi Schumann, a national park is forcefully asking an oyster farm to shut down its operations completely. The national park believes “the oyster operations [are] thrashing the eel grass... [And] spooking the mother seals off the sandbars and disrupting birthing season” (Schumann). I found this statement surprising because the article stated the farm was there before the park for seventy years and has impacted the land for quite sometime. I also found it shocking how accusatory this statement was. Especially because it is contradictory to a report produced by the National Academy of Sciences which said there is little evidence to support the disruption of seals and eel grass.
With this lack of evidence to support the removal of the oyster farm, the oyster farm has taken action and produced an array of valid arguments explaining why it should maintain residence in the park. First, the oyster farm believes it is beneficial to the surrounding economy because it prevents the importation of oysters. Next, the oyster farm predates the national park and says the national park only has control over areas of untouched land. This can be proven true since “half the parks have farms or working orchards” according to Gary Paul Nabhan. Lastly, the oyster farm suggests it “is part of the historical working landscape of the area- and every bit as in need of protection as the harbor seals and eel grass that share the bay” (Schumann).
The arguments made by the oyster farm are all valid since commerce has been a part of national parks since their beginning. The parks have been providing food, shelter and riches to settlers for at least a hundred years. According to NVS.gov, the National Park Service states “historic sites to be preserved for all people.”