Shop with’FlSHRAPPER Advertisers FISHRAPPER Only Independently Owned Weekly Newspaper on the Coast From Warrenton to Newport . MEMBER NENWER Association- Founded 105 Volume 6’ Number 13 by Paul Rouse Donald J. Sterling, Jr., editor for the Oregon Journal, wrote in the November 15, 1980 issue, “The Journal receives a few letters telling us 'we’re out of touch with public opinion because some of the editorial endorsements didn’t square with the voters decisions.” That great confession was on page 5 and the proof of that statement was on page 4 under the heading “The Unforgiving Bar.” At first reading, you might think some clown wrote the editorial opinion, but clowns are supposed to be funny and this is sad to the point of being stupid. . The person, male or female, who wrote the hatchet opinion (editorial) is writing the same theme the opponents to the jetty project have been singing since they found out there was to be a jetty restoration. He 6: she starts off the: nine ,_ with: “There’s a move afoot toxrepair the jetties at! the mouth of the Nehalem Bayvto the tune of $12 million. It is promoted on the theory that such a repair would enable many small boats to use the bay as a base for sport fishing in the ocean.” This start shows the writer hasn’t the slightest idea of what he or she was writing about and it would be a good bet that the writer doesn’t even know where Nehalem Bay is located or any other facts about it. At most, the writer is being used and fed pap, or else he should know the “move afoot” has been going on for fifty 1, years and the “move afoot” is now PublicLaw 96-304 and it was signed into law by President Carter on July 8, 1980. I Eight million dollars is appropriated under two federal fiscal budgets and the law is that the money must be spent for the project. Also under Federal law, the funds to finish the project are guaranteed. If the writer doesn’t 'know the difference from “a movement afoot” to a law, he had better bone up. ‘ Using the word theory to describe the movement further shows the lack of knowledge of the subject of his opinion. The truth is that the Port has,,for ISI'IRAP FISHRAPPER is a registered trademark which is the exclusive property of Paul Rouse Production-- Publication No. USPS 350-790 *ttitttttitit*iiittittitttfiittttttit*tittttittit*iittttittttitttttt*kttttttttt*****tt Journal Doing Hatchet Job on Nehalem Jetties Again Ro‘ck being dumped on South Jetty in 1915. If special interest groups have their way it may be the last. fifty years, been trying to get the agreement made by the government (we taxpayers) in the authorized River and Harbor Act of July 12, 1912 (House Document No. 623, 62nd Congress,- 2nd Session), providing for the construction of two rubblemound \jetties, subject to local interests contributing half the costs. In a letter dated February 18, 1979, General Charles I'. McGinnis, Director of Civil Works of the Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers in Washington, DC. to United States Senator Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon, is this quote, “The jetties were constructed in maintenance is considered F’ deral res onsibilit . The jetties were guilt to stabilize the entrance and while deteriora- tion has occurred, we feel they are still effective. -W maintenance work for the 'ettie has been periormed to date." ' Mr. Hatchetman, you’re three long fact-filled years behind in your chop job. Special interest opponents have written thousands of negative thoughts and, like you, most of them 1918 and feel inclined to write tons of gobbledygook because this is a ' Federally. funded project. The other eight of your paragraphs and the drivel contained in them prove beyond a doubt you haven’t the slightest idea~what you're writing about. Your conclusion as to the contrast to the Tillamook Bay and Nehalem Bay is stupid. Your history of the development of the Nehalem Bay area at its “Fading away“ shows your lack of any facts. The money belonging to you and your burdened taxpayer friends you are so concerned about, is our money also. You cry about the cost to return ratio, and that’s a sad song. Try this one. Millions of board feet of lumber products were taken out through those jetties, along with a billion ‘feet of lumber in log rafts that were not“ even counted. Tons of processed salmon and shell fish were taken to market through those jetties, as well as tons of dairy products. Now, get this! All the Federal government (we taxpayers)'spent from 1909 to 1960 was $302,691.71, you sure : December 30. 1980 L Page 17 23¢ "a ==x lllllllm in November 20, 1980 as hell got your money’s worth on that deal. Now, get this! The citizens of this area spent on the same project, because'they had to borrow money, during the . same time period $1,243,984.27I paid in gold coin. you ee mg earts want to give us back the gold coins or their value at today’s market we will build our own jetties like we, did in the beginning before the Federal Government came in on the deal. We spent $80 thousand on the project before the 1912 contract. The last two paragraphs of the uninformed_0pinion are so asinine as to be a joke. The writer’s knowledge of boating must be confined to playing with a rubber duck in his bath. The last two paragraphs are quoted below: “But the most powerful argument against, the new jetties remains the temptation they would create "for small, boat-operating visitors. The . jettieswould give an appear-V: * ance of safety and stability; The ' boater would be given false confidence by their presence. We taxpayers really have no ’ business spending $12 million to help our fellows reach danger, when by withholding the money, we can direct them to Safer and more forgiving waters.” Just where are the‘safer and more forgiving waters? If you are fishing off the north coast are you going to run for the safety of the Columbia River Bar or the Tillamook Bar, where just recently a large charter boat was destroyed and lives were lost? How about the ever forgiving Depoe Bay?’ Just where, Mr. Expert, would you direct these small boat- operating visitors? ' If you think you’re going to herd boaters around like sheep and keep the sudden storms away, you’re a bigger fool than your article makes you outto be. The facts of the case are that if the Federal government (we taxpayers) had lived up to their part of the 1912 contract between us. the citizens here, and had maintained the jetties, we Would not now be facing a $12 million project and we would have had a safe operation for‘ the past 61 years. More on Page 9 , OCR Text: Shop with’FlSHRAPPER Advertisers FISHRAPPER Only Independently Owned Weekly Newspaper on the Coast From Warrenton to Newport . MEMBER NENWER Association- Founded 105 Volume 6’ Number 13 by Paul Rouse Donald J. Sterling, Jr., editor for the Oregon Journal, wrote in the November 15, 1980 issue, “The Journal receives a few letters telling us 'we’re out of touch with public opinion because some of the editorial endorsements didn’t square with the voters decisions.” That great confession was on page 5 and the proof of that statement was on page 4 under the heading “The Unforgiving Bar.” At first reading, you might think some clown wrote the editorial opinion, but clowns are supposed to be funny and this is sad to the point of being stupid. . The person, male or female, who wrote the hatchet opinion (editorial) is writing the same theme the opponents to the jetty project have been singing since they found out there was to be a jetty restoration. He 6: she starts off the: nine ,_ with: “There’s a move afoot toxrepair the jetties at! the mouth of the Nehalem Bayvto the tune of $12 million. It is promoted on the theory that such a repair would enable many small boats to use the bay as a base for sport fishing in the ocean.” This start shows the writer hasn’t the slightest idea of what he or she was writing about and it would be a good bet that the writer doesn’t even know where Nehalem Bay is located or any other facts about it. At most, the writer is being used and fed pap, or else he should know the “move afoot” has been going on for fifty 1, years and the “move afoot” is now PublicLaw 96-304 and it was signed into law by President Carter on July 8, 1980. I Eight million dollars is appropriated under two federal fiscal budgets and the law is that the money must be spent for the project. Also under Federal law, the funds to finish the project are guaranteed. If the writer doesn’t 'know the difference from “a movement afoot” to a law, he had better bone up. ‘ Using the word theory to describe the movement further shows the lack of knowledge of the subject of his opinion. The truth is that the Port has,,for ISI'IRAP FISHRAPPER is a registered trademark which is the exclusive property of Paul Rouse Production-- Publication No. USPS 350-790 *ttitttttitit*iiittittitttfiittttttit*tittttittit*iittttittttitttttt*kttttttttt*****tt Journal Doing Hatchet Job on Nehalem Jetties Again Ro‘ck being dumped on South Jetty in 1915. If special interest groups have their way it may be the last. fifty years, been trying to get the agreement made by the government (we taxpayers) in the authorized River and Harbor Act of July 12, 1912 (House Document No. 623, 62nd Congress,- 2nd Session), providing for the construction of two rubblemound \jetties, subject to local interests contributing half the costs. In a letter dated February 18, 1979, General Charles I'. McGinnis, Director of Civil Works of the Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers in Washington, DC. to United States Senator Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon, is this quote, “The jetties were constructed in maintenance is considered F’ deral res onsibilit . The jetties were guilt to stabilize the entrance and while deteriora- tion has occurred, we feel they are still effective. -W maintenance work for the 'ettie has been periormed to date." ' Mr. Hatchetman, you’re three long fact-filled years behind in your chop job. Special interest opponents have written thousands of negative thoughts and, like you, most of them 1918 and feel inclined to write tons of gobbledygook because this is a ' Federally. funded project. The other eight of your paragraphs and the drivel contained in them prove beyond a doubt you haven’t the slightest idea~what you're writing about. Your conclusion as to the contrast to the Tillamook Bay and Nehalem Bay is stupid. Your history of the development of the Nehalem Bay area at its “Fading away“ shows your lack of any facts. The money belonging to you and your burdened taxpayer friends you are so concerned about, is our money also. You cry about the cost to return ratio, and that’s a sad song. Try this one. Millions of board feet of lumber products were taken out through those jetties, along with a billion ‘feet of lumber in log rafts that were not“ even counted. Tons of processed salmon and shell fish were taken to market through those jetties, as well as tons of dairy products. Now, get this! All the Federal government (we taxpayers)'spent from 1909 to 1960 was $302,691.71, you sure : December 30. 1980 L Page 17 23¢ "a ==x lllllllm in November 20, 1980 as hell got your money’s worth on that deal. Now, get this! The citizens of this area spent on the same project, because'they had to borrow money, during the . same time period $1,243,984.27I paid in gold coin. you ee mg earts want to give us back the gold coins or their value at today’s market we will build our own jetties like we, did in the beginning before the Federal Government came in on the deal. We spent $80 thousand on the project before the 1912 contract. The last two paragraphs of the uninformed_0pinion are so asinine as to be a joke. The writer’s knowledge of boating must be confined to playing with a rubber duck in his bath. The last two paragraphs are quoted below: “But the most powerful argument against, the new jetties remains the temptation they would create "for small, boat-operating visitors. The . jettieswould give an appear-V: * ance of safety and stability; The ' boater would be given false confidence by their presence. We taxpayers really have no ’ business spending $12 million to help our fellows reach danger, when by withholding the money, we can direct them to Safer and more forgiving waters.” Just where are the‘safer and more forgiving waters? If you are fishing off the north coast are you going to run for the safety of the Columbia River Bar or the Tillamook Bar, where just recently a large charter boat was destroyed and lives were lost? How about the ever forgiving Depoe Bay?’ Just where, Mr. Expert, would you direct these small boat- operating visitors? ' If you think you’re going to herd boaters around like sheep and keep the sudden storms away, you’re a bigger fool than your article makes you outto be. The facts of the case are that if the Federal government (we taxpayers) had lived up to their part of the 1912 contract between us. the citizens here, and had maintained the jetties, we Would not now be facing a $12 million project and we would have had a safe operation for‘ the past 61 years. More on Page 9 , Nehalem Valley Historical Society,Under Construction,August 2023 Shipment Scans,Fishrapper Clippings, partial sections,1980,November 20 1980,P01 (1).tif, P01 (1).tif