Stay informed: Keep up to date with breaking news on
Measure 21-177

May 9, 2017:

“Direct Action” in the eyes of a voter who will vote no on Measure 21-177

The views and opinions of submitters to do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of’s staff or management. The views and opinions are strictly those of the submitter.

In response to John Colman-Pinning’s comment posted 9 May 2017:
Mr. Colman-Pinning,

Thank you for your perspective on the ‘Direct Action’ provision within Measure 21-177, and your express repudiation of violence or destruction of private property for the purposes of enforcing this Measure, should it pass.

I’ve reviewed the Measure at your suggestion, and I find no subsection within Sections 3 or 4 that further clarify the definition of Direct Action in subsection 5(d) as “any activities or actions…,” without fear of legal consequences:
“If enforcement through direct action is commenced, this law shall prohibit any private or public actor from filing a civil or criminal action against those participating in direct action.” (Section 5(d))

By failing to set any limits on Direct Action, Measure 21-177 leaves voters to wonder how it might be enforced in practice, should an individual believe that the County or a court has failed to interpret, uphold and enforce it to their subjective satisfaction. Oregon Citizen’s Arrest laws could, indeed, have been cited in the Measure to help define “Direct Action,” and ensure that Direct Action Enforcement under this Ordinance respected the human and civil rights of the accused. Unfortunately, the authors neglected to cite even a single Oregon Revised Statute in the Measure text. Voters also cannot expect existing State and Federal law to “kick in” to protect our communities after the Measure passes, since the authors were careful to establish the legal supremacy of this Ordinance over and above existing local, state, and federal legal institutions:

Section 6(c): “All laws adopted by the legislature of the State of Oregon, rules adopted by any State agency, laws adopted by the United States Congress, and rules adopted by any federal or international agency, shall be the law of Lincoln County only to the extent that they do not violate the rights or prohibitions of this Ordinance.”
Section 8: “All inconsistent provisions of prior Ordinances adopted by Lincoln County are hereby repealed, but only to the extent necessary to remedy the inconsistency.”

My concerns about Direct Action, and those of others opposing this Measure, would be overblown, indeed, if everyone in our society shared your principled commitment to peaceful respect for the law. However, protesters’ use of lead balls and slingshots, pepper spray, and Molotov cocktails to inflict injuries and property damage at this year’s Portland May Day celebrations, the armed occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in 2016, as well as the legacy of violent environmental direct action in Oregon, such as the arsons of the BLM Wild Horse and Burro facility in Burns (1997) the U.S. Forest Industries headquarters in Medford (1998) and Boise Cascade offices in Monmouth (1999), the firebombing of Jefferson Poplar Farms in Clatskanie (2001), and the nighttime destruction of sugar beet research plots in rural Jefferson County (2013) make me hesitant to endorse public policy that would embolden those who would do harm in our communities under the aegis of Measure 21-177.

Please vote “NO” on Measure 21-177
–Alan Fujishin
Gibson Farms, Siletz


May 9, 2017:

Another opinion calling for a “NO” vote on Measure 21-177

The views, opinions and observations contained in the following submittal are strictly those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the staff, management or advertisers of The views expressed are entirely those of the submitter.
From Joe Steere

Measure 21-177 is based on ideology without concern for its negative impacts on Lincoln County. I was not surprised, listening to our County’s commercial fishing representatives on a recent radio show, to hear that proponents of the Measure had not answered their attempts to contact them to learn about the Measure. Proponents did not consult with farmers, family foresters, pest control experts or any other individual/business that might be hurt by Measure 21-177. It appears as though they felt the only person they needed to consult was Thomas Linsey and his east coast organization (CELDF), the primary author of the Measure. Thomas Linsey encourages his supporters to break the law and CELDF has ties to the radical environmental group Deep Green Resistance which advocates for property destruction and armed movements (direct action), while he uses litigation to collect attorney fees from municipalities defending or fighting vague laws.

It is puzzling to hear Measure supporters speak so confidently about practices in these impacted industries when most of them do not have any background in the type of businesses that will be hurt, nor have they spoken with county neighbors that actually work in fishing, forestry, farming, etc.

I have spent 50 years in Farming, Fishing and Forestry (40+ getting paid) and find it ludicrous that some of my Lincoln County neighbors believe I would put my family’s health in jeopardy. Be it a big corporation or small family operation, a herbicide application to a recent clearcut or a home pest control company controlling termites, the individuals doing the work probably are your neighbors. We could bore you with a recital of laws and regulations covering our work, but it comes down to, why would we harm our own families and neighbors?

There is no way for these folks to know what this Measure means for business and jobs in Lincoln County because they have not taken the time to educate themselves. If they do know, then they are obscuring facts to push their ideological agenda (ecosystem rights, community rights, direct action..) and they are doing so at the expense of all working families in our County.

Ideology without facts leads to bad policy. Vote NO on Measure 21-177.


May 2, 2017:

Another opinion calling for a “NO” vote on Measure 21-177

The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Lincoln County, its staff and advertisers. Their views are strictly their own.

From:Ted Holland, General Manager, Western Cascade Industries

We have been dismayed as Measure 12-177 supporters spread misinformation to hide the true impacts the Measure would have on Lincoln County. Perhaps most troubling is the claim that the forest industry only offers an insignificant contribution to the County economy. There are a host of businesses like ours that work directly with forestland owners and who will be significantly hurt should Measure 21-177 pass.

Forestry touches many local employers including those that work the forests; help build the forest roads; transport timber; provide and maintain the tools of the trade; and those that mill the harvested timber. Western Cascade Industries is a family owned sawmill that has called Toledo home since we opened our doors 19 years ago. Over those 19 years we have grown from a company with a handful of workers to one that employs 85 people. The jobs, wages and taxes we create are significant and would be noticed we were to forced to close or layoff workers.

Our business and our employees will experience irreversible harm should Measure 21-177 pass. Measure supporters assertion that more time consuming, labor intensive and dangerous forms of land management will not make forestry more expensive does not pass the common-sense test. Woodland owners tell us that should this Measure pass, timber harvests could reduce by upwards of 30%. Many smaller operations worry that they will be put out of business. That type of disruption in our supply chain would have a devastating impact for us with reduced supply and increased prices.

Proponents would like nothing more than to have voters think that “Wall Street” is the only victim of a “yes” vote. Please remember it is Main Street Lincoln County, companies like ours that make an important economic contribution to our shared community that will actually feel the pain.

Ted Holland
General Manager

No on 21-177


May 1, 2017:

Aerial Spraying is cheaper than spraying from backpacks on the ground.

The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Lincoln County, its staff and advertisers. Their views are strictly their own.

Measure 21-177 Would Skyrocket Costs for Family Forestland Owners
From Brea Walters

New data from Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) confirms banning aerial application of pesticides, as proposed by Measure 21-177, would more than triple costs for local forest landowners to control invasive and noxious weeds that threaten to choke out newly planted tree seedlings.

Proponents of the measure claim if the measure passes, landowners will still have viable alternatives to aerial spraying, and that those alternatives would not have any economic impact to landowners. Yet those who have decades of experience sustainably managing Lincoln County’s forests have rightfully pointed out the fallacy of this claim.

Upon request, ODF’s Lincoln County office recently released data for the West Oregon District detailing costs for ground and aerial spray operations in the past three years. That data demonstrates ODF’s ground applications are between three and five times more expensive per acre than aerial applications. Costs for private landowners would be significantly higher as ODF utilizes low-cost labor through inmate crews for ground-based applications.

Landowners commonly use aerial application as a safe and effective method for weed control, giving tree seedlings a leg up in the first few years over competing weeds like blackberry and Scotch broom that compete for vital resources like sunlight, water, and nutrients. Without the option to aerially spray, foresters would be limited to only ground-based methods like backpack spraying or hand removal. Often, ground-based operations are impractical in remote and rugged terrain that can be difficult and often dangerous to access.

For small family forestland owners, like those in Lincoln County, more than tripling costs for weed control could cripple their operations, ultimately putting them out of business, eliminating critical jobs and threatening the health and vigor of our Lincoln County forests.

Brea Walters


April 29, 2017:

County Commissioners get down to nitty gritty with Rep. Kurt Schrader

Central Coast Congressman Kurt Schrader sat down with county commissioners over the phone this week for a rapid fire conversation on what concerns the commissioners have over what’s going on in Washington DC.

Commissioners Terry Thompson and Doug Hunt made it clear that President Trump’s plans to drastically cut science research programs like Sea Grant and NOAA’s satellite imaging budget, as well as cuts to the Coast Guard, would badly damage Lincoln County’s economy and endanger lives.

Congressman Schrader assured the commissioners that Trump’s proposed federal budget for next fiscal year will not be approved by the Congress. He said it’s a budget that demonstrates Trump’s ignorance of the federal government, how it operates and how it must be funded. Schrader says the Congress will pass a temporary extension of the current budget until they can get a new one put together. Schrader also said the budget, which is solely in the hands of the Congress, will not contain money for Trump’s infamous wall along the Mexican border.

Commissioners Thompson and Hunt (Commissioner Hall was not present) raised the issues of homelessness and affordable housing. Schrader said the long recession battered the housing construction industry which has been slow to recover. Schrader said the high price of timber is part of the problem as well as the growth of housing that caters mainly to tourists, rather than for people who work and live on the coast. And what’s worse, Schrader said, homelessness and affordable housing is not even on the Republican party’s radar screen.

Schrader called Trump’s proposals to cut the Coast Guard and funding for ocean research “just plain crazy.” He said that Trump just doesn’t have a grip on how to run a country – but quickly added, “How could he – because he’s never been a politician or a government worker or dealt with a government budget in his life.” “Congress adopts the budget, not the President,” he said. Schrader said the Congress will pass a budget that makes sense for the nation. And with a 60 vote majority in the Senate required to pass a budget, “there will be a meeting of the minds on all aspects of that budget.”

Schrader said he doubts the Coast Guard’s budget will be cut as Trump wants. He said the Pacific Ocean is much colder than the Atlantic up and down the east coast. He said the recent fight to keep a Coast Guard rescue helicopter based in Newport helped ensure that it will stay in Newport. He also predicted that the Coast Guard Station at Depoe Bay will not be closed either.

On the topic of Newport’s port and efforts to make its new International Terminal a vitally new component to the Central Coast economy, Schrader said it’s vital to have the terminal built to handle exports as well as imports. He acknowledged the uproar from other communities up and down the coast who felt that continuing to ship just raw logs overseas is not good for Oregon’s overall economy. As a side-note, port officials acknowledge the legitimacy of that argument and are coming up with an altered business plan.

Commissioner Thompson brought up the controversy over aerial pesticide spraying as it’s applied over recently clear cut forest lands. Schrader said he agrees with Lincoln County Commissioners who recently came out against Measure 21-177. Schrader said it’s unfair to penalize an entire industry for an occasional bad actor. He said vigorous enforcement of spraying rules is the key. Schrader said that many people don’t understand aerial spraying or the safeguards that are built into the rules to protect public health.

Schrader also touched on the country’s rapidly aging transportation system. He said it’ll take a trillion dollars to make a difference in our roads and highways. He said he expects to see the Congress put up $200 billion and then leverage the rest. Such a public-private partnership has been kicked around for a number of years. On the plus side, it would accelerate the reconstruction of our nation’s infrastructure. On the downside it would jack-up the long term costs by quite a bit.


April 26, 2017:

More dialog on Measure 21-177

The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Lincoln County, its staff and advertisers. Their views are strictly their own.

What’s in a name?

Supporters of Measure 21-177 focus their message on taking down the “big timber corporations.” However, the reason why so many local family businesses are opposed is that a “corporation” is defined in the Measure as any business that operates in Lincoln County, including my family’s farm.

This inclusive language is a problem compounded by the fact that Measure authors created a vague definition of “aerial spraying” that does not mention aircraft at all. Legal experts we consulted agree that the Measure is open to broad legal interpretation and that this ban could be applied to practices beyond spraying by aircraft. A key author of the Measure admitted the definitions are intentionally vague to give flexibility in applying the ban.

These broad definitions mean any local business that uses pesticides, including small farms, foresters, fishermen, golf courses, and pest control will be impacted if this Measure passes.

The use of pesticides, synthetic or organic, is highly regulated at the state and federal levels. For farming, forestry, or boat painting you must be a licensed applicator to use pesticides, which comes with the requirement of continuing education. My family has managed land in the Siletz River Valley for over 70 years, and we have relied on scientific research and regulations to keep our community, our environment, and ourselves safe. As part of our integrated pest management program we use pesticides sparingly, but there are times when pesticide use is the only tool that will work to combat invasive plants and insects and allow us to sell our fruit commercially.

Perhaps supporters of the Measure only intend to hinder out of state corporations, but it is small local businesses that will be most heavily impacted.

This Measure is not right for our County. Please join me in voting NO.

Lorissa Fujishin
Gibson Farms
Siletz, OR


I have been following Measure 21-177 almost from the beginning and I find fault with this measure. When the Lincoln County Commissioners and Lincoln Sheriff strongly oppose it and state that could raises all sorts of possible legal issues, why open up a can of worms? If this is a big problem should the Lincoln County Commissioners seek legal advice and draft a measure to correct this problem, or work with our State officials to write legislation the right way?

The term “direct action” is not clearly defined and scares me. We have laws and legal ways to resolve issues and to say someone can take the law into their own hands to solve an issue goes against everything I’ve been taught and circumvents the legal systems we have in place. I have not researched any of the Oregon current laws or regulations concerning aerial spraying. Maybe the existing laws and regulations should be reviewed and updated if necessary. I feel that if there is a violation of laws or regulations you should report it to the proper authorities and let them investigate.

I’ve received and reviewed the 2016 Newport Water Quality Report and saw no signs of pesticides or herbicides detected. Doesn’t mean it has not happened in the past or will not happen in the future. Hope we can keep it from happening, but this measure is not the way to do it.

I strongly suggest a no vote on this measure.

Robert Whitman
Newport OR.


Lincoln County’s fishing industry opposes Measure 21-177. The measure is very poorly worded, would ban practices upon which we rely, and expose us to lawsuits and vigilantism.(read the section on ” Enforcement” and “direct action”).

Our industry is blessed to have an amazing local maintenance facility at the Port of Toledo which has been recently upgraded at considerable expense to accommodate large fishing vessels. All vessels must be hauled from the water for regular maintenance, which includes spraying hulls with specially formulated anti-foul bottom paint. This paint keeps marine life like algae and barnacles from growing on hulls and is classified as a pesticide. Anti-foul paint is applied by spraying on most larger vessels, from ladders and lifts where necessary. Measure 21-177 sponsors have defined “aerial spraying” as spraying with your feet off the ground. The east coast lawyer who helped draft this measure, recently said that the Measure was vague intentionally because you want to be left with “flexibility.” Recent public comments from supporters have only increased our concerns.

The Port facility and vessel owners are already heavily regulated and must take legally required steps to ensure environmental and personal safety. This includes a ” state of the art” tent facility designed to contain paint particles. Please support our local fishing industry by voting “NO” on Measure 21-177.

Bob Spelbrink, Siletz, F/V ALLIANCE


April 21, 2017:

Measure 21-177 discussions…

The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Lincoln County, its staff and advertisers.
From: Tom and Meridee Wiley

I disagree wholeheartedly with this Measure 21-177. I side with our community leaders like our Sheriff and County Commissioners who point out how the poor wording of this Measure will lead to unintended consequences including vigilantism, expensive law suits, and the loss of important, regulated tools used by farm, forest and fishing families to put food on their table.

I also wholeheartedly believe that those who support the Measure are entitled to their opinion. This is an important issue which should be discussed and better understood. Many Measure 21-177 supporters completely disregard legitimate concerns raised about the ordinance. The best public policy is achieved with input from all stakeholders. It seems that the Measure supporters did not consult with the Lincoln County residents working in the industries that will be affected. Farmers, foresters and fishermen were not given an opportunity to provide input before the Measure was written. They are now doing what they should do in the policy process, letting people know how this Measure will impact their business and our community.

Rather than welcoming the dialogue, concerns are dismissed by Measure supporters as “fake”. Individuals with roots in the county going back generations are labeled as corporate shills and our elected officials are accused of manipulating the truth.

This is not conversation. This has become a shouting match and it is not the right way to do things in Lincoln County. Regardless of your opinion on aerial spraying, Measure 21-177 is not the way forward.

I encourage everyone to read the complete Measure and understand the full content. Measure 21-177 contains more language than the simple concept of banning aerial spraying. The Measure was crafted by a non-profit from Pennsylvania with a larger agenda. Oregon state law controls aerial spraying on private lands and a county ordinance will not be able to supercede statutes without legal debate and costs to Lincoln County residents with little hope of success.

Thank you,
Tom and Meridee Wiley


April 20, 2017:

A NO vote on 21-177 

The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Lincoln County, its staff and advertisers. Their views are strictly their own.


NO on 21-177

Friday evening, at Newport’s Performing Arts Center, Tomas Linsey the founder of Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), an East coast enviro organization, gave a talk sponsored by an OCCC foundation. Linsey and CEDLF are the proud authors of Lincoln County ballot measure 21-177 as local supporters have said.

Mr. Linsey gave a boiler plate talk on how community rights, ecosystem rights, and natural communities need to be used to circumvent our existing government laws and constitutional rights. He advocates litigation filed by unelected community rights person or persons and direct action to accomplish these ecosystem rights.

During questioning by supporters asking for, clarification on the vague definitions, Linsey called 21-177 “ one of the most well written” initiatives. He would not directly answer why the definition of aerial spraying is ‘Physical Deposition of pesticides into the land, water, or air by any aerial method.. He did answer that Direct Action is trespass, getting in front of equipment – helicopters etc., whatever it takes and still be protected by the new law in 21-177.

Measure 21-177 is intended to give activist and vigilantes the power to push their agenda against any business or governments with which they do not agree. As Linsey put it the vagueness was “intentional” to give them flexibility in how it is applied. “ When you vote for the initiative, you are not just voting for the ban of aerial spraying, you are actually voting to change the system.”

Vote no on 21-177, a Trojan Horse of vague laws.

Joe Steere
Lincoln County Farmer, small woodland owner.



April 17, 2017:

More debate over Measure 21-177 (Ban on Aerial Spraying of Pesticides)

The following is a letter to the editor from a caring citizen. The views and opinions expressed therein are strictly those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of, its staff or advertisers.


Lincoln County Sheriff Curtis Landers Opposes Measure 21-177

Citing “highly troubling” ordinance language that would impact public safety in Lincoln County, Sheriff Curtis Landers is encouraging a “NO” vote on Measure 21-177.

In a Lincoln County Voters’ Pamphlet statement, Sheriff Landers points to the enforcement mechanisms in the Measure that would allow individuals, even non-Lincoln County residents, to take the law into their own hands as a threat to law enforcement and the general public.

Landers writes, “Section 5 (d) of the ordinance text allows any person, whether they live in Lincoln County or not, to ‘enforce the rights and prohibitions of this law through direct action’ if they feel the County or courts have failed to sufficiently enforce or defend this Ordinance.”

Pointing to the Measure’s granting of blanket immunity for any crimes committed in the name of “direct action,” Sheriff Landers underscores the difficulties this Measure would present his office in the execution of their public safety mission, “My deputies and other law enforcement in the County would be unable to enforce laws against trespassing, vandalism, destruction of property, and even bodily harm. There are no boundaries placed on what constitutes ‘direct action,’ meaning this would authorize damage to property and even persons.”

Landers continues, “Our county faces real law enforcement challenges with a vast amount of territory to cover and limited patrol resources. I am very concerned about the strain this Measure would put on my office, ultimately impacting public safety countywide.”

Finally, Landers emphasizes two sentences via bolded text in his statement:
A law that would encourage vigilantism via “Direct Action” should give real pause to every voter in this election.

I encourage a NO vote on measure 21-177.



April 16, 2017:

Opposes Measure 21-177 on May ballot

The following is a letter to the editor from a caring citizen. The views and opinions expressed therein are strictly those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of, its staff or advertisers.


I have been disappointed to see the fear mongering tactics employed by supporters of Measure 21-177 as they try and scare Lincoln County into voting for a poorly worded measure that would impact a wide array of businesses and impact every Lincoln County tax payer.

I grew up in the trees in Lincoln County and have been an Emergency Physician in Oregon farm/timber counties for 23 years. Not once have I found lasting or significant injury or health related issue from spraying the chemicals that will be banned by this Measure. I have, however, treated numerous major injuries from forestry accidents as a result of manual forestry techniques. Falls, cuts, crippling chest and back injuries and worse happen on Lincoln County’s rugged landscape. If we ban aerial spraying, the only option left to forest owners will be chainsaws, machetes, and other limb and back threatening equipment. This is not only economically devastating for small, family foresters; it will put more people in the path of danger.

Beyond not wanting to see forestry casualties spike, I have a real problem with the fact that this Measure, if passed, will tie the hands of Lincoln County to tackle outbreaks of infectious diseases. Aerial spraying is a necessary tool to stop outbreaks of diseases like Zika, West Nile and Malaria and this measure would take a tool away the County uses to protect the public health.

There are already strict aerial spraying practices and regulations in place to ensure the safety of our environment and our public health. The tools used are highly tested and any drift is illegal.

Measure 21-177 is a threat to Lincoln County’s economy and the health of its residents. I encourage folks to get the science-based facts on this issue before voting.

Thomas Newton, MD
Silverton, OR


April 10, 2017:

Further Dialog on Measure 21-177 – Aerial Spraying of Forestlands

Fact Check: Aerial Spraying in Federal Forests
Key Argument for Measure 21-177 Proven False

The Coalition to Defeat Measure 21-177 is releasing new information correcting false statements by proponents of the Measure that the aerial spraying of pesticides is banned in local forests managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

On April 4, 2017, Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) issued a correction to a 2015 story that disproves a central argument used by proponents of Measure 21-177 to justify an aerial spray ban in Lincoln County.

Repeatedly, and via multiple mediums (including the County Voters’ Pamphlet), proponents have made the false claim to voters that that aerial pesticide application is banned on federal lands managed by US Forest Service (USFS).

The now-corrected OPB story reads, “A previous version of this article stated that aerial herbicide spraying was banned on Forest Service lands. The practice was banned temporarily in the 1980s after legal challenges but the agency later regained a more limited use through a mediated agreement.” (Schick)

Clarifying statements from the USFS further delineate that aerial pesticide application IS NOT banned, outlawed, or otherwise prohibited on federal lands managed by the USFS in the Pacific Northwest, or any other region of the country (Bautista).

Shawna Bautista, Pesticide Use and Invasive Plant Program Manager for the Pacific Northwest Region of the USFS, explains, “aerial application is, indeed, utilized by USFS, along with other methods, to suppress invasive species and contribute to forest and grassland health. Aerial application is also used on serious outbreaks of native forest pests. It remains a vitally important tool to respond to outbreaks of serious forest pests, like gypsy moths…”

Additionally, “the USFS sometimes uses aerial application to treat large or inaccessible infestations of invasive plants.”

Bautista continues, “due to our current forest management practices, it is unlikely that we would propose any aerial herbicide applications [west of the Cascades], but there is no specific prohibition on that application method.”

The Coalition to Defeat 21-177 would like to thank the USFS for its role in natural resource stewardship on 172,000 acres of Siuslaw National Forest in Lincoln County. You can learn more about their timber management and forest stewardship at:

Voters are encouraged to get the facts about this Measure and how forestry practices benefit both forests and public health at:


Schick, Tony. “BLM Investigates After Company Sprays On Public Land Without A License. “
OPB, 27 Oct. 2015, Accessed 5 Apr. 2017.

Bautista, Shawna. Pesticide Use and Invasive Plant Program Manager for the Pacific Northwest
Region of the USFS. “Re: Aerial Spraying on USFS Land.” Received by Alan Fujishin, 23 Mar. 2017.


Following is my letter to the editor urging a NO vote on Measure 21-177 for publication:

Lincoln County’s community leaders are urging a NO vote on Measure 21-177. A primary reason: Measure authors’ ban all aerial spray of pesticides but did not bother to define what aerial means.

When asked to explain this fatal flaw, Measure 21-177 supporters keep changing their answer.

In an October 2016 press release celebrating this Measure’s placement on the ballot, proponents said the following: “What qualifies as aerial spraying? Putting it briefly in the words of one of our supporters, ‘If your feet are on the ground, it is not aerial spraying’.”

When confronted with the fact that many industries beyond forestry safely spray pesticides when feet are not on the ground, proponents began to point to definitions of “aerial spraying” that they failed to cite in the Measure. In the words of Newport City Councilor David Allen: “There was an opportunity to define (aerial) in the ordinance before it was put on ballot. Now, after the fact, people say of course aerial means this, but it’s not in the ordinance. That’s going to have to be interpreted (by a judge). It’s nice to hear your interpretation, but someone else may not have your interpretation.”

Now that the poor wording and unintended consequences have been exposed, Measure proponents are again changing their tune. This passage was posted on the YES campaign’s Facebook page: We need to pass this crucial initiative, and then the courts will iron out the wording links.

I don’t buy it and neither should you. This Measure was born of politics not sound policy. Measure proponents’ refusal to own up to the problems with their ordinance make me question if they are more committed to an activist agenda rather than the wellbeing of Lincoln County.


Rennie Ferris


April 3, 2017:

East Coast, Extremist Organization Responsible For Measure 21-177

Measure 21-177 is a dangerously-worded ordinance that will bring significant harm to Lincoln County’s economy, including fishing, farming, forestry and more.

Proponents claim to be fighting for Lincoln County residents, but the true driving force behind this Measure is an outside, fringe organization that is looking to impose a radical political agenda in communities throughout the nation.

21-177 was drafted with the assistance of a Pennsylvania-based organization called the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF). A quick review of the group’s website and other websites reveals the larger agenda this Measure seeks to advance and the threat it poses to public safety and all corners of Lincoln County’s economy.

CELDF has attempted to pass similar laws in nearly 200 communities across the country, based on their aim to undermine our legal and political systems. Lincoln County is nothing more to CELDF than a vehicle to achieve their radical world view.

Measure 21-177’s sponsors, Lincoln County Community Rights, are proud of their association with this fringe, activist outfit. A link to CELDF is on their website, they brag about the hand CELDF played in drafting this Measure; and CELDF founder Thomas Linzey visited with proponents in 2015 and, according to their Facebook page, will be back in Newport on April 14th.

Please read the ordinance. Measure 21-177 goes well beyond aerial spraying. It seeks to upend the courts, our Constitutions, and existing laws.

The CELDF agenda is so incendiary, that one of the nation’s strongest environmental defenders, the Natural Resource Defense Council, considers CELDF’s style too risky for local communities enacting the ordinances.

Let the words of CELDF speak for itself and for Measure 21-177:

This is on display in Measure 21-177, where CELDF has clearly outlined a plan for vigilantism. Section 5(d) of the ordinance text states: “any person may then enforce the rights and prohibitions of this law through direct action. If enforcement through direct action is commenced, this law shall prohibit any private or public actor from filing a civil or criminal action against those participating in direct action.”

In short, if “any person” feels that the County or the courts are not enforcing this ordinance to their subjective standard, they can enforce it themselves via “direct action,” which could include property damage, criminal trespass, and even assault.

Please say “NO” to outside, vigilante extremist agendas. Listen to the Lincoln County, multigenerational families in farming, fishing, forestry and more who oppose this Measure.

Reject Measure 21-177!