IFish Fishing Forum banner
101 - 120 of 122 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,906 Posts
Sad state of affairs as I see it. Gov'ment doing what they do best, spending tax dollars every way OPPOSITE of what the $$$$ were intended for. Tax more, spend more and the cycle doesn't end/WON'T end until voters figure out how to vote. It's not just Oregon... It seems to be prominent with all the states on the west coast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,475 Posts
That money is a big deal in counties where they are heavily dependent on it. Take Tillamook county. Isn’t much left except logging and Tourism...
Please understand, the Plaintiff Counties' NEVER had the $1-Billion. They and their attorneys tried to pick the pockets of all Oregonians (including the residents of those counties - LOL!)

BTW, half or more of Tillamook's personal income comes from Gov't transfer payments. The logging industry provides some good paying jobs but is a small fraction of Tillamook County personal income.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
Please understand, the Plaintiff Counties' NEVER had the $1-Billion. They and their attorneys tried to pick the pockets of all Oregonians (including the residents of those counties - LOL!)

BTW, half or more of Tillamook's personal income comes from Gov't transfer payments. The logging industry provides some good paying jobs but is a small fraction of Tillamook County personal income.
The intent of the management agreement was to provide income to those countries through timber harvests. Everyone knows the greatest value was for those countries, not for the entire state, including the State of Oregon. The state bowed to the change in the political climate, Oregon now argues that the greatest value is for things other than timber harvests. Also they really don't want to pay $1 billion.

The State of Oregon should just give the land back to the counties for management if they don't want to meet their commitment.

Pretty simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,475 Posts
The intent of the management agreement was to provide income to those countries through timber harvests.
Pretty simple.
\
Did you take time to read the court's analysis?
Simple enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
\
Did you take time to read the court's analysis?
Simple enough.
My point was the intent of the original agreement. The intent was income for the counties.

I could care less if the State pays the billion dollars.

All they have to do is turn the ground back over to the counties. The agreement obviously doesn't work for both parties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,052 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,034 Posts
My point was the intent of the original agreement. The intent was income for the counties.

I could care less if the State pays the billion dollars.

All they have to do is turn the ground back over to the counties. The agreement obviously doesn't work for both parties.
Hmmm timber companies get a sweet heart tax deal for their private lands, complain long and hard about not able to log state or federal land lobbying that they get handed down to the lowest level of government that will sell the land…. Get the common man arguing about a tree while looking at a forest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,266 Posts
Where is the harvested lumber going? Local mills or overseas? I drove through North Bend last week and saw lots of raw logs piled high on the docks waiting to be loaded on ships. Sure would be sad to see our resources (that we give tax breaks for) being shipped to foreign countries while a majority of our mills being shut down and out of work mill workers collecting government checks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
As has been said before, the counties aren't capable of managing the forests in their counties.
Maybe 40 plus years ago but not currently. Being that the counties would promptly sell to private timber companies who would locks US OUT!, its not a good idea.

Im all for a Raw Log Export Ban!
Local production by local work force of a local resource.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
532 Posts
This subject has been covered numerous times on ifish - please check your facts. With the exception of Port Orford Cedar, public timber in Oregon is not exportable. Just got off the phone with the Coos County Forestry Dept. to verify their non-export status.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,475 Posts
This subject has been covered numerous times on ifish - please check your facts. With the exception of Port Orford Cedar, public timber in Oregon is not exportable. Just got off the phone with the Coos County Forestry Dept. to verify their non-export status.
That is true, however, PRIVATE land logs are what's being exported. Columbia County is ~90% private timber lands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,475 Posts
My point was the intent of the original agreement. The intent was income for the counties.
The counties DID receive their share of the timber revenue.

The counties' argument was there was a contract with the State of Oregon. The court emphatically ruled, "NO"

The Court's ruling nullified the counties' second argument which was under such "contract", balls-to-the-wall logging with no regard to anything else should have happened, leading the $1-Billion claim.

This is what happens when politicians are seduced by businesses with campaign contributions and promises of easy-money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
The counties DID receive their share of the timber revenue.

The counties' argument was there was a contract with the State of Oregon. The court emphatically ruled, "NO"

The Court's ruling nullified the counties' second argument which was under such "contract", balls-to-the-wall logging with no regard to anything else should have happened, leading the $1-Billion claim.

This is what happens when politicians are seduced by businesses with campaign contributions and promises of easy-money.
I didn't say they didn't get revenue.

Revenue and Greatest Value are not the same thing.

I said the counties didn't get their greatest value as intended in the original agreement.

The intent of the original agreement .... was greatest value for the county, not the whole State of Oregon, or even the citizens of the State of Oregon.

I have no doubt that the state sent money when logging was completed.

While the Court found there was no "Contract" between the State and the counties, their is a management/care agreement.

Again ... the agreement is no longer working for the both parties. I'm sure the original agreement has a has a nullification clause.

Kind of like when a property manager isn't managing your rental property the way you want. They get fired.

The Federal government gave the land to the counties not the state.

Thought ... may be this was the counties plan the whole time. Get the ruling one way or another, go through all the steps, then give notice to terminate the agreement?

Tillamook County alone, what is the timber ground worth?

To another comment, that counties don't have to manage the ground. They can hire that work out. I'm sure Lone Rock, Weyerhauser, Roseburg, etc would be willing to take one parts of this management in exchange for harvesting deals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,306 Posts
This subject has been covered numerous times on ifish - please check your facts. With the exception of Port Orford Cedar, public timber in Oregon is not exportable. Just got off the phone with the Coos County Forestry Dept. to verify their non-export status.
I've never seen it covered on iFish before :unsure: Link? What law prohibits counties from exporting? OAR 629-031-0005 only covers State land. It goes against what I have personal knowledge of (but its has been many years). Maybe you could post up a link to a Coos County timber sale contract with a no-export clause? Sorry, but I wouldn't count on anyone who works for Coos County to know much of anything.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
532 Posts
I've never seen it covered on iFish before :unsure: Link? What law prohibits counties from exporting? OAR 629-031-0005 only covers State land. It goes against what I have personal knowledge of (but its has been many years). Maybe you could post up a link to a Coos County timber sale contract with a no-export clause? Sorry, but I wouldn't count on anyone who works for Coos County to know much of anything.
Place "log exports" in search community and scroll through all the discussions pertaining to this subject thru the years. Call Coos County Forestry Dept. (541) 396-3121 for yourself. Lance Morgan is the County Forester.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
I've never seen it covered on iFish before :unsure: Link? What law prohibits counties from exporting? OAR 629-031-0005 only covers State land. It goes against what I have personal knowledge of (but its has been many years). Maybe you could post up a link to a Coos County timber sale contract with a no-export clause? Sorry, but I wouldn't count on anyone who works for Coos County to know much of anything.
I worked for Coos County and I would have to agree with you. 😄
 
101 - 120 of 122 Posts
Top