Oregon's Critical (Dying) Counties (Portland, Klamath Falls: living in, law, legal)

[rdickers]

I agree no one has a stated goal of destroying rural Oregon, but you have to have observed what they do and what they've done in the past to fully understand their (your) methods of operation. I have a record of over sixty years of observations, with the really negative actions having taken place starting in 1973. Friends and I spent family fortunes trying to prevail against those slick folks who said everything you're saying. And, BTW, if you think ONDA is only removing wire fences, then you don't know skat.
Like Larry Caldwell, I know what happened at Hart Mountain. I lived there; was a friend of Deese McKee and other ranchers who lost their grazing rights. I particpated in an early Antelope study for which the results were distorted by U of O, to achieve the desired end to cattle grazing on Hart Mountain. It took forty years to achieve what Larry just wrote about.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by rdickers

I agree no one has a stated goal of destroying rural Oregon, but you have to have observed what they do and what they've done in the past to fully understand their (your) methods of operation.

I have a hard time attributing to maliciousness, what can be better described as "unintended consequences."

Either way, I still believe that since you are being affected directly, you can not see the forest for the trees.

Would you, or would you not agree that it is our duty to preserve Oregon for our children and their children? I still have not seen anyone state what the benefit is for "them" to "destroy" rural Oregon.

[Steve Pickering]

Originally Posted by hamellr

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.

Well Said....... and Rdickers could you please fix that mess you made of the thread?

[rdickers]

Whether your life has been destroyed by intentional means or through unintended consequences, the results are the same. Only a cold-hearted bureaucrat could say, "Well, the greater good has been served and that makes me a better person because I can see beyond the forest."
It is my duty to care for my family the best I can and be a good steward of the land. The difference between us is in the definition of "preserve:" You want something to look at; I want land that is economically productive.

[rdickers]

Can you advise how I may fix that mess.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by rdickers

The difference between us is in the definition of "preserve:" You want something to look at; I want land that is economically productive.

Actually, I want something that can achieve both for myself, my descendants, AND other residents who come after me 100 years from now.

We are only temporary stewards of the land. It'll be here long after we are all gone, but it's use comes with a price.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Originally Posted by hamellr

.........................................
Would you, or would you not agree that it is our duty to preserve Oregon for our children and their children? I still have not seen anyone state what the benefit is for "them" to "destroy" rural Oregon.

The reason that there is a beautiful Oregon is because the people who live here have taken good care of their state and the area they live in. The people who live here know how to take good care of our area. The "unintended consequences" of votes by the people of Portland who have no idea what they are doing and are following some liberal feel good agenda, is that they, the voters of Portland, are destroying rural Oregon through ignorance.

The huge forest fires are brought to you compliments of all the lawsuits that put an end to logging and prevent proper care of the forests. Tell them that they are damaging the forests and they just deny it, claiming that they are the ones who know what is best, even if they have never lived anywhere that wasn't paved over. They think that because they like to look at trees, that nobody should be allowed to harvest them and care for them properly.

However, they have a good idea about removing all the dams on the Columbia. We'll miss all the environmentally healthy hydro-power, but with no dams, the Columbia will flood out Portland and wash it all out to sea. So the voters there can finally get some results affecting themselves and not just people they can't see from their bedroom window,

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

The "unintended consequences" of votes by the people of Portland who have no idea what they are doing and are following some liberal feel good agenda, is that they, the voters of Portland, are destroying rural Oregon through ignorance.

You'll notice that I've never said everything that has happened is a good thing. I believe that there is a fine balance in the middle some where that will do the most good for the most people.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by hamellr

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

It's a religious thing. They are acting on their beliefs, not on reality.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

It's a religious thing. They are acting on their beliefs, not on reality.

Proof?