Let’s start by imagining you’re a county official in the early 1900s, sitting behind a creaky wooden desk, surrounded by ledgers so grim they could double as Edgar Allan Poe manuscripts.
I grew up in Yamhill. Laughlin Logging. You didn't mention but logging rebuilt this country after the world wars. Also supplied lumber during the war
It was a necessity to have that lumber for the country to rebound.
My family worked with Willamette industries till it was bought by Weyerhouser. Willamette regrew and logged very sustainably. It was a great company. Forests green and growing.
The truth is so important. They regrow. The endangered species act is a joke when it comes to the forest birds.
If younger generations went out in the forest instead of reading environ nonsense it would help. Dead and dying and brush aren't healthy forests.
Great points. Oregon’s timber industry didn’t just build local communities—it helped rebuild the country after the world wars. Lumber wasn’t just an economic driver; it was essential to America’s recovery. And companies like Willamette Industries proved that logging and sustainability aren’t opposites—they’re part of the same cycle.
HB 3103 isn’t about cutting more—it’s about managing smarter. The forests are green and growing, and we should keep it that way while honoring the promise made to rural communities.
The lands of Oregon were stripped of their major resource as fast as the corporate owners could harvest the forest. The rural towns of Oregon were nothing more than a third world colony, with a vast, if not all, profits from the logging sent off to Chicago and San Francisco. Once the old growth was logged off, the mills shut town, the towns became poverty pockets of unemployed , uneducated workers left on their own.
The private lumber companies responded to their dictum to bring home the profits to shareholders, and throw a few repo stats to calm the media. The greatest stand of timber was rapped, the beautiful streams were filled with soil erosion, thousands of logging roads cut up and down across these streams, destroying the salmon habitat. Lets not go back to the days of rape and burn, of get out the cut at all cost. I had a conversation with an old timer that worked around the Prineville area. We were standing on a logging road looking out over the "forest". He was sad as he described what had happened in the 50'sand 60's, the clear cuts as far as the eye could see, and everyone involved knew how long and difficult it would be to bring the forest back.
Once the trust is lost from those that were in charge of forestry practices, it is very hard to get back. Should we trust the corporations who set up shop, log, mill, then shut it all down, sell the logged over land, and move to the next forest to start it all over again. Weyerhauser clear cut the forest of Michigan before heading out to clear cut the forest of Washington and Oregon. That's what they do.
Did the Oregon State Forestry Practices Act secure the sustainability of the forest as it was intended to do. The question always was about enforcement, which was woefully inadequate. Of course the public saw the scars in the forest management and salmon management. No amount of glossy pictures and media blitz ever hides the facts that Oregonians see everyday.
The natural world is changing radically. We all can sense that on a daily basis. Healthy ecosystems are our main hedge for survival in the next 100 years. What is it going to take for Oregonians to be able to feel confident that the natural world that is our birthright will survive.
That’s quite a post—passionate, detailed, and deeply skeptical of the timber industry, past and present. And look, I’m not here to give a rah-rah speech for 1950s-style clear-cutting, nor am I handing out nostalgia-laced brochures for the "good old days" of unchecked logging. But if we’re going to have this conversation, let’s at least get a few things straight.
Yes, early logging practices were often destructive. There’s no denying that. When corporate timber companies treated Oregon like a giant ATM with no withdrawal limit, the result was predictable—forests stripped bare, local communities left in the lurch, and ecosystems thrown out of balance. But that’s not what this debate is about. No one—least of all the folks supporting HB 3103—is arguing for a return to the free-for-all days of “get out the cut” logging.
What we’re talking about now is something different: a working forest model that actually keeps working. And guess what? The numbers show it’s possible. Oregon’s state forests (which, by the way, are separate from the privately owned lands that companies like Weyerhaeuser operate on) grow about 800 million board feet of new timber every year. The forests are regrowing faster than we’re harvesting, and yet, under the new Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), the state is proposing to lock up even more land than the Endangered Species Act requires—without clear justification.
The question isn’t whether we should bulldoze through old growth and pretend it’s 1947. The question is whether we should trust the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) to actually manage these lands responsibly, balancing conservation with sustainable harvests like they promised. And that’s where skepticism—your skepticism—is actually well-placed. Because if we’ve learned anything from history, it’s that when government agencies make sweeping changes without accountability, rural communities tend to get left holding the bag.
HB 3103 doesn’t let corporate logging interests call the shots. It holds ODF itself accountable to the counties that rely on these forests—not just for jobs, but for schools, public safety, and essential services. It’s about transparency, predictability, and responsible management. And if we want to talk about “trust,” I’d argue that requires making sure ODF doesn’t move the goalposts every few years without explaining why.
So, yes—let’s protect Oregon’s forests. Let’s learn from the past. But let’s also be honest about what’s happening today. We don’t need to choose between responsible forestry and healthy ecosystems. We need a plan that respects both—and that’s what HB 3103 is trying to ensure.
Let federal agencies manage federal lands/timber and state agencies manage state controlled forests. The state should have no say in federal harvests. The state should have No say in any natural resource issues on federal controlled lands. Timber, grazing, mining, etc.
Your emails are among the most informative I have found. Thank you!
I grew up in Yamhill. Laughlin Logging. You didn't mention but logging rebuilt this country after the world wars. Also supplied lumber during the war
It was a necessity to have that lumber for the country to rebound.
My family worked with Willamette industries till it was bought by Weyerhouser. Willamette regrew and logged very sustainably. It was a great company. Forests green and growing.
The truth is so important. They regrow. The endangered species act is a joke when it comes to the forest birds.
If younger generations went out in the forest instead of reading environ nonsense it would help. Dead and dying and brush aren't healthy forests.
Great points. Oregon’s timber industry didn’t just build local communities—it helped rebuild the country after the world wars. Lumber wasn’t just an economic driver; it was essential to America’s recovery. And companies like Willamette Industries proved that logging and sustainability aren’t opposites—they’re part of the same cycle.
HB 3103 isn’t about cutting more—it’s about managing smarter. The forests are green and growing, and we should keep it that way while honoring the promise made to rural communities.
I fully support your house bill.keep up the hard work
And thank you.!!
The lands of Oregon were stripped of their major resource as fast as the corporate owners could harvest the forest. The rural towns of Oregon were nothing more than a third world colony, with a vast, if not all, profits from the logging sent off to Chicago and San Francisco. Once the old growth was logged off, the mills shut town, the towns became poverty pockets of unemployed , uneducated workers left on their own.
The private lumber companies responded to their dictum to bring home the profits to shareholders, and throw a few repo stats to calm the media. The greatest stand of timber was rapped, the beautiful streams were filled with soil erosion, thousands of logging roads cut up and down across these streams, destroying the salmon habitat. Lets not go back to the days of rape and burn, of get out the cut at all cost. I had a conversation with an old timer that worked around the Prineville area. We were standing on a logging road looking out over the "forest". He was sad as he described what had happened in the 50'sand 60's, the clear cuts as far as the eye could see, and everyone involved knew how long and difficult it would be to bring the forest back.
Once the trust is lost from those that were in charge of forestry practices, it is very hard to get back. Should we trust the corporations who set up shop, log, mill, then shut it all down, sell the logged over land, and move to the next forest to start it all over again. Weyerhauser clear cut the forest of Michigan before heading out to clear cut the forest of Washington and Oregon. That's what they do.
Did the Oregon State Forestry Practices Act secure the sustainability of the forest as it was intended to do. The question always was about enforcement, which was woefully inadequate. Of course the public saw the scars in the forest management and salmon management. No amount of glossy pictures and media blitz ever hides the facts that Oregonians see everyday.
The natural world is changing radically. We all can sense that on a daily basis. Healthy ecosystems are our main hedge for survival in the next 100 years. What is it going to take for Oregonians to be able to feel confident that the natural world that is our birthright will survive.
That’s quite a post—passionate, detailed, and deeply skeptical of the timber industry, past and present. And look, I’m not here to give a rah-rah speech for 1950s-style clear-cutting, nor am I handing out nostalgia-laced brochures for the "good old days" of unchecked logging. But if we’re going to have this conversation, let’s at least get a few things straight.
Yes, early logging practices were often destructive. There’s no denying that. When corporate timber companies treated Oregon like a giant ATM with no withdrawal limit, the result was predictable—forests stripped bare, local communities left in the lurch, and ecosystems thrown out of balance. But that’s not what this debate is about. No one—least of all the folks supporting HB 3103—is arguing for a return to the free-for-all days of “get out the cut” logging.
What we’re talking about now is something different: a working forest model that actually keeps working. And guess what? The numbers show it’s possible. Oregon’s state forests (which, by the way, are separate from the privately owned lands that companies like Weyerhaeuser operate on) grow about 800 million board feet of new timber every year. The forests are regrowing faster than we’re harvesting, and yet, under the new Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), the state is proposing to lock up even more land than the Endangered Species Act requires—without clear justification.
The question isn’t whether we should bulldoze through old growth and pretend it’s 1947. The question is whether we should trust the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) to actually manage these lands responsibly, balancing conservation with sustainable harvests like they promised. And that’s where skepticism—your skepticism—is actually well-placed. Because if we’ve learned anything from history, it’s that when government agencies make sweeping changes without accountability, rural communities tend to get left holding the bag.
HB 3103 doesn’t let corporate logging interests call the shots. It holds ODF itself accountable to the counties that rely on these forests—not just for jobs, but for schools, public safety, and essential services. It’s about transparency, predictability, and responsible management. And if we want to talk about “trust,” I’d argue that requires making sure ODF doesn’t move the goalposts every few years without explaining why.
So, yes—let’s protect Oregon’s forests. Let’s learn from the past. But let’s also be honest about what’s happening today. We don’t need to choose between responsible forestry and healthy ecosystems. We need a plan that respects both—and that’s what HB 3103 is trying to ensure.
Let federal agencies manage federal lands/timber and state agencies manage state controlled forests. The state should have no say in federal harvests. The state should have No say in any natural resource issues on federal controlled lands. Timber, grazing, mining, etc.