Proposed Oregon rules could restrict agritourism
The clash reveals competing visions for the future of farming and farmland in Oregon.
Farmers across Oregon warn that new proposed rules could devastate small and mid-sized farm and ranches by limiting agritourism—activities many say are critical to their survival. Some conservation advocates, however, argue the changes are necessary to protect farmland for its primary purpose: growing and grazing food.
The draft rules, issued by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), have sparked heated debate. According to reporting by Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB), Governor Tina Kotek’s office has received over 2,300 calls and emails opposing the regulations.
In a viral Instagram video viewed over 3 million times, Jim Abels and Kat Topaz of Topaz Farm in Sauvie Island urged viewers to contact Oregon lawmakers.
“The DLCD rules will put the nails in the coffin for us,” Topaz says.
“They’re trying to shut agritourism down,” Abels says. “Who benefits if small to medium-sized farms go under? Who benefits if you can’t go to U-pick or pumpkin patches or enjoy those fall harvest activities?”
Supporters of the rules say the intent is to clarify, not restrict, what’s allowed on farmland.
“Much of the alarm being raised isn’t rooted in fact. Both the current and proposed rules allow farm stands, U-pick set-ups, pumpkin patches, and farm-to-table dinners,” Nellie McAdam, board member of the land use watchdog group 1000 Friends of Oregon, said in a statement. “The proposed farm stand rules would actually make it easier for farmers to establish farm stands and U-pick operations for all of us to enjoy and support.”
Following the public backlash, Governor Kotek ordered DLCD to pause the rulemaking process.
“I want to reassure farmers who have been anxious and frustrated about how proposed changes to existing rules regarding farm stand operations may affect their businesses that I hear from you and am paying attention,” Kotek said in a statement.
What would the rules do?
The proposed regulations would narrowly define what qualifies as a “farmstand.” Farmers selling products from permanent structures could be required to obtain land use approval. Only items deemed “incidental” to farm products would be allowed for sale. That could exclude crafts, souvenirs, or local goods.
Rules around prepared foods are also vague, potentially banning sales of items like cider donuts or ice cream, even if made from farm-grown ingredients.
Opponents say the changes could also prohibit promotional events like hayrides, petting zoos, or live music unless directly tied to a farm product or an educational purpose. Farm-to-table dinners would be capped at 17 per year.
Additional requirements include stricter parking and access standards, recurring permit reviews, application fees, and possible retroactive enforcement—even for previously approved operations.
Who supports the rules, and why?
Proponents argue that unchecked non-farm development on farmland undercuts the long-term viability of Oregon agriculture.
Jim Johnson, working lands policy director at 1000 Friends of Oregon and a former land use coordinator with the Oregon Department of Agriculture, told OPB that some businesses are blurring the line between agritourism and commercial use.
“The issue we’re dealing with has to do with agritourism things happening at farm stands that should actually be going through the agritourism process,” said Johnson.
He argues that because farmstands are not subject to the same “good neighbor tests” as other businesses, some are disrupting neighboring farms and ranches with traffic, noise, or trespassing.
“Agritourism is great as far as it goes, and as long as it’s complementary to agriculture,” Johnson said. “Bottom line, the more that you bring non-farm development out onto farmland, the more that the speculative value of that land changes and it makes it more difficult for people to farm long term.”
Farmers say agritourism is keeping them afloat
Many farmers and ranchers say the agricultural economy has shifted, and agritourism is a lifeline.
A study by Oregon State University found that about one in five farms in the Willamette Valley engage in agritourism. For those that do, the activities generate around half of their total income. Agritourism in the region contributes nearly $1 billion annually and supports roughly 11,000 full- and part-time jobs.
Farms that incorporate agritourism see 70% higher sales and 48% more employment than their peers—figures that advocates say underscore how essential these activities are to keeping Oregon’s working lands in production.
Friends of Family Farmers, another Oregon-based non-profit, says the rules could help open new opportunities and ensure equal access, but expresses concern about the lack of clarity and burdensome new requirements.
“The first thing we want to acknowledge is that our base does not agree on the right way forward here,” the group said in a statement. “Many folks want no regulation at all on the way they welcome the public onto their farm, and many others want to restrict these activities to make sure farm production remains the primary use of our EFU zoned lands. But we do all agree that we want to give small farms a way to thrive in Oregon, we want to help community members form a connection to their farmers and teach the public about food production, and we want farms to adapt to the realities of the changing marketplace.”
Vermont and New Jersey are currently trying to steal land from small farmers as well. I bet this is more about land theft than anything else. The more regulations there are, the more burden there is for the small operator to stay in conformity with those, and thus the trap is set. You see the same problem in organic. Organic Eye has recently covered this. Large ag has no problem with all the extra regs because they just hire a full-time person to deal with it.
I think in this case we have to assume that there are nefarious intentions. American Stewards of Liberty has also been covering all the land theft.
If the concern - as one proponent interviewed said it was - is losing farmland to production, the state might want to examine their embrace and encouragement of wind and solar projects. Take Gilliam, County for example. There's a lot of wheat grown here, and for the last two decades we have watched wind farms built on wheat land, especially in North county. A wheat farm loses about 5% of its' acreage to pads and roads. It may not seem like much, but when you add up the acreage lost just here, it is in the thousands. When the solar farms come (and they are coming), that is a 100% complete loss of land.