Oregon's Critical (Dying) Counties (Portland, Salem: tax, to live in, fence)

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Steve Pickering

It looks like a lot of people are moving to the valley, and staying on the coast, at the expense of Eastern Oregon. Of course in some places over there if 10 people move a large percentage of the population have left town.

Nobody lives in town. The BLM has been jerking grazing leases, and since the feds own 90% of those counties, that means ranches are folding up.

[Steve Pickering]

My wife's great Grandfather was the First Doctor in Harney County and her mothers side is from there, so don't tell me there is no one living in the towns.

[rdickers]

I believe depopulation of Oregon counties is planned from Salem. Land use and environmental rules have so encumbered development inside growth boundaries, and virtually stopped growth outside of boundaries, to where new opportunities cannot be made cost effective because of process fatigue and the high cost of arguing with Salem. The cities are mostly blue, and the more citizens that can be driven into them the easier it is to get converts, and to reduce those populations destroying public lands and the environment.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by Steve Pickering

My wife's great Grandfather was the First Doctor in Harney County and her mothers side is from there, so don't tell me there is no one living in the towns.

OK, then I'll tell you there are a lot of dead people living in towns.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by rdickers

I believe depopulation of Oregon counties is planned from Salem.

No. It's not. Why would the state PLAN depopulation? All that does is hurt the over all tax base.

~150 years ago, the population of Oregon was spread out across the entire state. The East side of the state lost population as the gold mines petered out, despite advances in technology making it easier to get gold. At the same time logging on the West side of the state stepped up, but it did not employ as many people.

In 1880-1920 railroads across the state revitalized many small towns, but the coming of the automobile coupled with the Depression killed more towns then any single industry. Many of these places might have survived one or the other, but this is why Oregon is touted as having so many Ghost Towns.

World War I saw huge increases in the logging industry again, but most of those people left because rural Oregon was still pretty much inaccessible. World War II saw another upswing in the logging industry and manufacturing industry to support the war effort. After the war ended, Portland's population shrunk by 1/3-1/2 depending on what numbers you read as people left Oregon. The logging industry shrunk also but gradually rose back up until the mid-1960's as the Post War building boom, busted.

The Japanese Economy started booming in mid 70's and busted in the 80's - this led to another boom in logging jobs. The spotted owl was a convenient scape goat to blame, but was not the cause of the bust. The timber industry has never recovered from that though. There have been small rises and booms since then, but nothing major.

Since then the major cities have done an excellent job attracting industry, but there is only so much that can be done. Industry no longer grows on trees and has to be supported by excellent infrastructure - roads, mass transportation, electricity, Internet capability, and buildings.

But this still leaves rural Oregon at stagnant growth - the majority of the world's population no longer wants to live in small towns with few amenities where the major industry is back fence gossip. Industry no longer wants to move to small towns where they can't get enough, educated workers.

All the Urban Growth Boundaries have done has kept Portland from spreading all the way down to Salem and destroying Oregon's largest remaining cash cow. I shudder to think what Portland would look like now, but I'm pretty sure it would be Detroit like and we'd be even worse off over all.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Originally Posted by rdickers

I believe depopulation of Oregon counties is planned from Salem.

The only depopulation "plan" from Salem is refusing to provide infrastructure that will support business. Salem's basic plan for east of the Cascades is to be unaware that there is any Oregon east of the Cascades.

[rdickers]

[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Some of what you say is true. There has been a gradualshift of population from rural communities to the cities. Much has beencaused by productivity improvements in agriculture, logging and mineralextraction, which no longer require the labor forces that they oncedid. However, the remainder of your argument is simply Kool-Aid from theleft. To believe that 1000 Friends of Oregon and some 44 otherenvironmental organizations in Oregon have not influenced policies that havecrippled rural communities is totally absurd. Of late, ONDA, OregonNatural Desert Association has infiltrated every major community east of Bendin an effort to essentially end cattle production in Eastern Oregon which, forexample, in Malheur County, is the major economic driver of thecounty. ONDA is funded by the very rich and very liberalbusinesses, some of whichare located in Oregon and enjoy special tax privileges and incentivesfrom Oregon government. When I say infiltrated, I can give you the namesand addresses of the employees of the organization that have as a goal, theeconomic destruction of rural Oregon. Of course, they will claim thattheir goal is to protect the environment and improve wild land habitat fornative species, and if they have to destroy the livelihood of a couple hundredthousand residents, well so be it. ONDA is also the King of gaining“offset” funding for anything any major corporation or endeavor wants to do onpublic lands in Oregon and elsewhere. They, with their team of lawyerswork to stop any effort to do anything outside urban growth boundaries or toscratch the surface of public lands, without receiving “offsetting”compensation for violations of the natural desert surfaces, or some otherunfounded nonsense. If they cannot stop it, they delay it until processfatigue and legal costs end the endeavor. The youngsters leavebecause they cannot see a future where they have to work from daylight todark seven days a week to scratch a living from land that from day to day mayor may not be theirs, and the government is standing on their air hose andready to damn off their irrigation water. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The absence of infrastructure needed to attract industry,albeit somewhat limited, to rural communities is also a direct result of Oregonland use policy. We do not have the infrastructure because the OregonLand Board and the blue legislature will not grant the exceptions needed tozone land for industrial uses if it might encroach on land zoned for farming,even when the exception could generate millions of dollars more revenue to thecommunity than the products produced by the farmland. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]On a personal level, I’ve opposed the land use policy sincethe beginning. I personally closed a business with 16 employees because Icould not get an exception to a land use policy. I was told to hirea lawyer to represent my case before the legislature. The closestlawyer was 350 miles away and he wanted $50,000 up front to take my case, on apiece of property for which I had paid $50,000. I once had anaudience with Governor Tom McCall (R), who assured me and others that our fearsabout losing the right to our property were not founded, only to learn that hehad betrayed us before we got back to our homes on the east side of thestate. I moved to Idaho. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]While I appreciate your comment and contribution to the forum, I hope youunderstand that from my perspective, you are the problem in Oregon. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by rdickers

While I appreciate your comment and contribution to the forum, I hope you understand that from my perspective, you are the problem in Oregon.

No one has the goal of Economic Ruin of Rural Oregon - or any other place. That would be simply ludicrous on so many levels that I'm not sure how you can even in good conscience say that. What would be the benefit of doing so? Why would a "Liberal Left" business seek to destroy an industry? Businesses exist to make money, even "Liberal" ones.

The Oregon Natural Desert Association is seeking to remove long abandoned fences from designated natural areas and preserve native salmon habitats in rivers in Eastern Oregon. Because Oregon also relies on Salmon fishing pretty heavily. These are the "seeds" of the Salmon industry, and it makes sense to increase your biodiversity by preserving critically endangered species. How does removing fences in already natural areas affect you personally on any level?

Your problem is your disagreement with the methods involved. On top of that, you think Eastern Oregon's problems are unique and special to you and "those #&@()*!# Portland Liberals do not understand the problems of farmers!"

This is provably false - Western Oregon has the exact same issues. 65% of Oregon's agricultural economy is generated within 50 miles of Portland city limits. There are entire crops in which Oregon is not only a national, but a world leader in the production of, that grow within that distance.

Yes, law put in place like the Urban Growth Boundary have strangled some industries and reduced a lot of potential growth But over all it has done more good for Oregon then any other single law. It may, as you say, have even affected you directly. But we have to balance the good of Oregon right now, vs. the good of Oregon 100 years from now. Paving over an acre of farmland is an acre of land that will never be farmed again.

As a farmer you should understand good stewardship of the land is more valuable to you economically in the long run. If you run the same crop over the land year after year your crop yield rapidly drops. Thus you run the fields fallow, or you practice crop rotation to add nutrients back to the soil. This is such a basic part of farming that Thomas Jefferson understood, practiced, and experimented with increasing the efficiency of crop rotation by using different species of crops. You also increase your biodiversity in your lands by leaving parts of it natural - if you have a problem with field rats, you let trees grow to support habitat for birds of prey. If you have a crop that needs pollinators, you plant the types of plants that attract pollinators.

BTW, Please do not call me the "Problem of Oregon." If you read the forums for long you'll see that I have family in your area, grew up on a farm, and still spend a lot of time in Central and Eastern Oregon. I even have my eye on a nice piece of land on the John Day River as a potential retirement location someday. I understand on a very personal level the exact problems you are having. The difference is that I believe we should do what is best for the maximum number of people - including those who are not born yet.

[Larry Caldwell]

I disagree. There are well meaning but ignorant people who think they are being environmentally friendly by removing cattle from public land. They also see meat eating as evil, and will do anything they can to block production of meat. An example was when they closed the Hart Mountain refuge to cattle grazing. The theory was that it would be good for the pronghorns. What actually happened was that rabbits moved in to eat what the cattle didn't eat. Then the coyotes moved in to eat the rabbits. With a huge boom in predators, most of the fawns got eaten and the pronghorn population crashed. So did they put cattle back on the refuge to fix the problem? No, because it had become "environmental policy" and all those dead babies were natural. The same thing is happening on millions of acres of BLM land. Another example was when Bill Clinton created the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument with a stroke of the pen, removing 86,000 acres of grazing in Southern Oregon. Demonizing the cattle industry was one of the big political strategies to make that happen. Yes, there are people out there intent on abolishing cattle grazing, timber harvesting, mining and even some agricultural crops, like grass seed. They can't pull crap like that and then stand around all innocent and virtuous. They are a political demolition team and their target is rural Oregon.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

They are a political demolition team and their target is rural Oregon.

What is the benefit to them to "destroy" rural Oregon?