Louise Solliday, the director of the Oregon Department of State Lands, called the removal of the stern a necessary step to demonstrate that the state is "serious about removing wrecks". She stated that if the stern were not removed, the argument that the ship is trespassing on state property (used in the state's lawsuit against New Carissa owners) would be undermined should another vessel wreck off the Oregon coast.[23] The sentiment was later echoed by Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, who also noted that the settlement of the lawsuit with the ship's owners leaves the state exposed to any liability issues concerning the ship.[13] Many environmentalists, as well as federal biologists and residents of the local community, were concerned about the potential for further ecological damage should the vessel leak any of the fuel oil that remained on board.[11] The editorial board of The Oregonian argued that allowing the stern to remain would send a message that the state is willing to "tolerate permanent damage to its beaches". The newspaper also rejected the notion that the wreckage should be compared to Peter Iredale, a sailing ship that wrecked on a beach near Astoria in the early 1900s, and whose remnants are a popular tourist draw.[24]