Oregon’s Private Campgrounds – Camp Dakota

To paraphrase John Lennon. imagine there are no government campgrounds. It’s easy if you try. Take Camp Dakota, for example, near Scotts Mills, 35 miles east of Salem. This privately-owned, in-the-forest get-away offers nearly 50 sites for tents, campers and RVs. You can also rent yurts and teepees. Want to play volleyball? Disc golf? Shoot air rifles or practice archery? You can at this private campground in the green Cascade foothills. A group of friends and I were just there to play paintball. Everything about this not-a-government campground is reasonably priced, well maintained and welcoming. Camp Dakota is exemplar of what would be if government focused on its core mission — protecting life, liberty and property — and left campgrounds to the private sector.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 24 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Maximillion

    I must disagree. What if I can not afford to go to a private camping area like Camp Dakota?? We need public lands for peoples like me to enjoy without breaking the bank, so to speak. I think a private campground is a good idea, but I wonder what would really happen if the government got out of the camping business. Would costs rise so much that the public could not camp? Perhaps.
    Anyway, I, for one, am very proud of the state-run campgrounds and parsk, as they allow for us without means to enjoy God’s gift to us all – the fabulous out of doors.

    Just as people need living wages, people need cost effective access to the great outdoors. This is a core mission of the government. It has to be because they own all the land.

  • eagle eye

    All those terrible public campgrounds, the state parks, national parks, wilderness areas, got to get rid of them all so the private sector can do a decent job! So many great private alternatives, look at all those private national parks and seashores. Why, if not for the government, we could have a toll road where the Pacific Crest Trail is!

    Another fantastic idea from the Oregon’s conservatives. They will be back in control in no time with sunbursts like these!

    I have nothing against Camp Dakota, but really ….

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >They will be back in control in no time with sunbursts like these!

    Conservatives were ever in control? Must have missed it.

    • valley person

      Lets see. There was the Gingrich-Hastert Republican led Congress from 1994-2006. And the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld White House from 2000-2008. THe Reagan-Bush White House 1980-1992. The Roberts led Supreme Court currently in command. The Oregon House and Senate led by Republicans through most of the 90s. So unless you are claiming Republicans are not conservatives, which I suspect you will claim, the answer is that yes they have been in control.

      Now claiming they are not really conservatives because they did not accomplish every bit of government deconstruction you are for is a clever way to avoid responsibility, but does not hold up to the light of day. You (conservatives) elected them, they represented you, and whatever they did or did not do is your shared legacy. Same as whatever Obama does or doesn’t do will reflect on we liberals, even when he strays from liberalism on various issues.

      • Steve Plunk

        In every example given there was divided government most of the time. Add in the ability of Dem senators to filibuster and it’s clear that conservatives have not controlled government at all.

        Now we have a filibuster proof Senate, a Dem controlled House, and a President who redefines liberal. Let’s see what we get. So far it’s not encouraging.

        • valley person

          To state that conservatives have lacked power over the past 3 decades is an empty complaint. They have never had complete power, but have had enough to enact measures important to them, from tax cuts to increased defense spending to welfare reform to initiating wars. Budgets are not filibustered, and are created and passed by majority parties. Republicans had 6 years to pass any budget they wanted. What we got was deficit upon deficit.

          The Democrats have a filibuster proof Senate, but as is the case with conservatives, liberals are not filibuster proof since 6 or 7 of the democrats in the senate are not liberals. So they can’t do everything or anything they want, but they can do a lot and will. Including running up more deficits.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Lets see. There was the Gingrich-Hastert Republican led Congress from 1994-2006. And the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld White House from 2000-2008. THe Reagan-Bush White House 1980-1992. The Roberts led Supreme Court currently in command.

            Do you ever read a damn thing before popping off?

            Good lord, I mean you are absolutely incredible.

            Either take a history lesson or learn how to read you absolute fool, none of the people you listed, absolutely none of them were ever in charge of the Oregon legislature.

            I mean you don’t even proof read, you often don’t spell check. Maybe if you did those things you would realize how posting something like this, that has absolutely zero relevance makes you look utterly ridiculous.

            >The Oregon House and Senate led by Republicans through most of the 90s. So unless you are claiming Republicans are not conservatives, which I suspect you will claim, the answer is that yes they have been in control.

            I would never claim such a thing. It is simply true.

            Words mean things, Republican is not the same word as Conservative.

            Those of us who use words, and are skilled at them, know the difference between two words. You do not. Thus your confusion. You simply are a fool, who tries to do this “you claim” nonsense about two words that have clearly distinct meanings. I don’t have to “claim” jack to deal with this witted statement of yours.

            >liberals are not filibuster proof since 6 or 7 of the democrats in the senate are not liberals

            Oh, so wait a second you said above Republicans being in charge constituted conservatives in charge, but now when Democrats are in charge you say, rightly so, that is not the same as liberals being in charge.

            Would you take your brain and think for just three seconds before you post next time. This is absolutely absurd. You try this “claiming nonsense and then completely undermine your own foolish argument in the very next post.

            This is the most half cocked thing you have written in the last week.

          • valley person

            A new record for you. Lame insults hurled after the first post. Next time Rupert, you should just start with the insults before I post anything. Maybe that will teach me a lesson or something.

            Lets start with something that should have been obvious, even to you. Eagle Eye brought the issue of national parks etc into play. He also brought Reagan into play. You responded to Eagle, so it was not out of the world of possibilities that you noticed that he mentioned national campgrounds. You said “conservatives were ever in control? Must have missed it.” You did not limit your remark to the state of Oregon, nor did he.

            So the answer is yes, I read a damn thing before I pop off. I read the original post, Eagle’s response, and your response. But apparently you don’t read before you pop off or you would have noticed national issues were already in the discussion. So call Eagle Eye names. .

            “Republican is not the same word as Conservative. ”

            Well thanks for that tautology. But Republicans are the right of center party, as Democrats are the left of center party. So when Republicans run the show that means conservatives run as much of the show as they are ever going to get.

            “Those of us who use words, and are skilled at them, know the difference between two words.”

            Your skill at word recognition is awe inspiring. Really. Very impressive. Now try to build some reading skills. after that, work on your social skills. I’ll send you a list.

            “Would you take your brain and think for just three seconds before you post next time.”

            That is darn good advice Rupert. You should take it yourself. You clearly did not read or digest anything that I wrote, then popped off with your lame insults and digressions.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Gee, how did I know you would never own up to your mistake and instead try some BS with a nonsensical tortured reading?

            And how did I also know you would have no logical argument on your screw up using Republicans and Conservatives as interchangeable but then insisting on distinction between Democrats and Liberals.

            Well, I guess because Dean never admitting he was wrong reaches a certain ludicrous level when trying to explain away too many glaring errors in one post.

            Well, its entertaining, if a little sad.

            You not taking my advice to take a minute or two to read over what you post before posting it has clearly not been heeded. I guess the upside is more hilarious flailing from you.

          • valley person

            I made a mistake by not reading into your comment: “Conservatives were ever in control? Must have missed it. ” that what you really neant was limited to Oregon only? Whatever Rupert.

            “And how did I also know you would have no logical argument on your screw up using Republicans and Conservatives as interchangeable but then insisting on distinction between Democrats and Liberals.”

            Let me try to explain in words even you might comprehend. We have a 2 party system. One party is naturally more conservative, and the other naturally more liberal. But there are never enough 100% conservatives or liberals to form a governing majority, especially in the Senate. Therefore either side has to make accomodations with moderates within their party or on the other side in order to get their busines done. But when either side is governing, and fails, conservatisim or liberalism takes the hit along with the party in power.

            Your attempt to deflect from the failure of conservatives during the Bush era is feeble. Bush ran as a conservative, proclaimed himself conservative over and again, and governed with a self-proclaimed conservative Congress for 6 years. Arguing these folks were not really conservatives is laughable.

            If and when Obama fails, liberalism will be blamed no matter to what extent moderates in his party block his initiatives. Same is true for any Republican who holds the presidency. If moderates in his own party block him, too bad for him and conservatives.

            ” You not taking my advice to take a minute or two to read over what you post before posting it has clearly not been heeded. ”

            Right you are on that point Wrong Way Rupert. And you yourself continue to fail to take your own advice.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >I made a mistake by not reading into your comment: “Conservatives were ever in control? Must have missed it. ” that what you really neant was limited to Oregon only? Whatever Rupert.

            What I really “neant”?

            Maybe I gave you to much credit for taking the time to spell check.

            Anyway, nice to see you backing away from the tortured reading of what I was responding to. .

            >Your attempt to deflect from the failure of conservatives during the Bush era is feeble.

            Who is deflecting? Id be the first to admit conservatives were pushed off to the side by Bush, who was an incredibly moderate president.

            Oh good lord, are you going to try and establish Bush was a conservative? Bush totally marginalized conservatives, look where it got him. So did congress when the Republicans had it. Look where it got them, a bunch of people pissed off at them because there wasn’t a dimes bit of difference between the Republicans in charge and the Democrats as far as spending went ( that’s pre BO spending, this guy has lost the deficit issue for you guys for a generation )

            Good lord, you’re loonier than I thought if you are going to try and take that path. Bush and his father were devout moderates.

            Seriously, can you name a single notable conservative who said Bush was governing in a conservative manner? Not just on one issue, but in general. Just one Dean.

            List just a single conservative who ever said Bush was overall a conservative president. Just one.

            >Right you are on that point Wrong Way Rupert. And you yourself continue to fail to take your own advice.

            Not really, I seem to dice you up pretty handily in almost every encounter we have.

            Can you list a single topic in which you ever had me dead to rights and I did not admit I was wrong?

            I can list three instances in which you were totally right and I was completely wrong and admitted as such forthrightly.

            You on the other hand, can’t even admit when you try and spell correct me on the word “loose” and screw it up.

            You can’t even admit here that you went off half cocked when listing a bunch of national figures when I was clearly, by any plain reading of what I cut and pasted in my response, talking about Oregon regionally.

            Go ahead, give it a try.

            Spell check “Lose” Dean.

          • valley person

            You might find this hard to believe, but I don’t keep a scorecard. There have been a lot of times, especially lately, that I have challenged you on something and you have conveniently disappeared or turned to personal attacks. A neutral debate referee would count those as wins for me.

    • eagle eye

      Rupert — a little irony there, verging on sarcasm. Conservatives haven’t been in control in Oregon in my memory. But there was a time when they were doing better, when the Republicans weren’t completely marginal. Given the incompetence of the liberal Democrats, we could use some alternative leadership here. But, running against government campgrounds — by doing — what? closing them down? selling off the parks? — isn’t going to cut it.

      Even the great Ronald Reagan only played at attempting even something marginally like that. Of course, he had much bigger fish to fry. As will any Oregon Republicans who are again successful, if that day ever comes.

  • David Appell

    Rupert, if conservatives aren’t doing better in Oregon, perhaps it’s because their ideas just aren’t good enough in the opinion of the majority of Oregonian voters. That’s the bottom line, right?

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >Rupert — a little irony there, verging on sarcasm.

    Oh ok, I had no idea you were doing the irony sarcasm thing here. My mistake.

    >But there was a time when they were doing better, when the Republicans weren’t completely marginal.

    As far as Oregon government? Sure, I could go along with that. As far as federal government? I would not agree. I frankly don’t think things were really all that different for Republicans in 1992 as opposed to now. I also think nationally Republicans were worse off in 1975 as opposed to now.

    >But, running against government campgrounds — by doing — what? closing them down? selling off the parks? — isn’t going to cut it.

    Sure, Id agree with that. I think its kind of a silly article to tell the truth. I have no issue with government run camp grounds, national parks etc. They seem to do a reasonable job. To whatever extent they do not it is way down on the list of government incompetence.

    >Even the great Ronald Reagan only played at attempting even something marginally like that. Of course, he had much bigger fish to fry.

    Like what? Or should I say, like Watt? I’m not sure if you are referring to government parks here. Frankly I though Reagan’s interior secretary was something of a hoot.

    • eagle eye

      Largely in agreement here, especially about it being a silly article. To repeat, I have nothing against a private campground like this making a go of it. I sometimes stay at fairly primitive private “resorts” myself. But I don’t see articles like this advancing any kind of conservative cause in Oregon. It just gives very cheap but effective ammunition to opponents.

      The Republicans in 1975? That was the year after Watergate! Not really a fair comparison, but even so, Ford came within an inch of winning in 1976. 1992? The hapless Bush I lost to Clinton, who really turned out to be a pretty moderate Democrat. The Republicans came back in 1994 and if they hadn’t behaved so stupidly, could have had much more of an impact.

      Now? A truly breathtakingly radical guy in the White House. Very bad time for the conservatives if he doesn’t fall soon. There may be little left to conserve.

      Yes, I was referring to the somewhat buffoonish James Watt, who of course was Reagan’s first Interior Secretary. He wasn’t exactly trying to sell of the national parks, but there was talk — that’s all it was — of selling off the much larger national forests. Reagan actually signed the biggest wilderness bill ever in 1984. Of course, he also cranked up timber sales to record levels. And then came the spotted owl ruling.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >It just gives very cheap but effective ammunition to opponents.

        I suppose. Frankly I just simply think there are plenty of better more stark comparisons between the government and private sector than something like camp grounds. In other words, I don’t think anyone really gives a rip about privatizing public camp grounds as I doubt many people are out there thinking the government does all that bad a job of running those within their purview.

        >The Republicans in 1975? That was the year after Watergate!

        That’s exactly why I mentioned it. Republicans were hammered for Watergate. Few then saw the party recovering at least presidentially as well as ideologically with the speed it did. With Nixon seen as a crook, and Ford as an utter dolt not a lot of people would have expected a Republican victory of such consequence and advancement of conservative, rather than blue blood Republican thought in the political zeitgeist a few years later.

        >1992? The hapless Bush I lost to Clinton, who really turned out to be a pretty moderate Democrat.

        Right. Have you lost track of what this conversation was about? It was about conservatism and conservatives thought of as ideologically dead and that not being the case.

        Clinton was elected and Democrats were convinced they had an ideological mandate. What happened? Well, the two big things on an ideological level were health care reform and gun control. On the latter we had Chuck Schumer so confident on the issue that he said “you know, the NRA has always said any gun control was just the camels nose under the tent, well, we’d like to show you the rest of the camel” ( I’m paraphrasing ).

        What happened? Health care never went anywhere and the Democrats lost congress in large part due to the gun control issue.

        What happened in 1994?

        Well, by that time no one was really feeling liberal ideology was on the up swing, but most felt the Democrats were fairly in control. Gwen Ifil on ABC’s this week said “no, I don’t think we are in danger of losing the House” (I am not paraphrasing). In fact the only person to predict the Democrat loss of the house was Robert Novak.

        What happened after that? Clinton shifted and became much more moderate. We went from his first state of the union speech which proclaimed “government must do more” to his speech after 1994 which said “the era of big government is over”. We went from universal health care to welfare reform, which was unthinkable in 1992.

        That’s a real big change in a few years considering liberalism was on nothing but the ascendancy in 1992.

        So in other words, what I am saying is political ideologies, at least in my memory, have often been discounted as totally down and out many times. They seem to have a habit of coming back.

        >The Republicans came back in 1994 and if they hadn’t behaved so stupidly, could have had much more of an impact.

        Quite true. Although what constitutes behaving “stupidly”? you talk to a liberal and they will tell you its because Republicans were too conservative. That’s not it, people were pissed off Republicans had controlled congress and the presidency for a fair amount of time and really hadn’t seen a dimes bit of difference between them and the Democrats. Sure, some guys in Berkley were mad at Bush because they felt he was a right wing Nazi. However for the most part the anger was at Bush and congress for not reigning in any spending and in fact expanding it.

        >Now? A truly breathtakingly radical guy in the White House. Very bad time for the conservatives if he doesn’t fall soon. There may be little left to conserve.

        I am going to assume you are referring to present conditions rather than a hypothetical.

        I actually think its a really good time for conservatives. I am not saying conservatives are taking advantage of it. However BO is fairly polarizing on the issues, and that’s a good time to really make distinctions clear.

        As evidence look at Obama care. They are dying to get this thing passed before the August recess. Why is that? Well, they don’t want congressmen to go home and hear from their constituents. They doesn’t speak well to the popularity of what they are doing, or their confidence in it.

        Sure, BO and House Pelosi might get some things passed, but it is clearly beginning to chafe people.

        >Yes, I was referring to the somewhat buffoonish James Watt, who of course was Reagan’s first Interior Secretary.

        Sure Watt was clearly a buffoon as far as handling the media goes. However I did find his most infamous comment, rendered to a diversity bean counter, quite hilarious. Frankly he was a really funny guy and I infinitely preferred him on that basis to the sanctimonious Bruce Babbitt who was such a bore.

        • eagle eye

          In case you’ve forgotten, I got started because you said

          “Conservatives were ever in control? Must have missed it.”

          It’s not that they were never in trouble, it’s that they once had some power. I was actually referring more to local conditions in Oregon than nationally. Basically, the Republicans/conservatives are completely marginal in Oregon, except that they can block tax increases — in referenda and initiatives, not in office.

          Nationally, I don’t think it’s hopeless for the conservatives, but I do really believe we’re close to a point where changes will be made to the country by the governing left that can never be undone. That hasn’t happened since the 30s, unless you count the civil rights changes of the 60s as a leftist program. I didn’t and don’t.

          • valley person

            I would propose adding (from the 60s-70s): Medicare, Medicaid, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air and Water Acts and affirmative action as transformative policies previously put in place by the left (with crucial help from moderates) that are here for good (except for AA, which will eventually go away). And prior to the 30s you had national and state parks, forests, and refuges established by progressives (thus our public campgrounds).

            If Obama is succesful, you can add universal health insurance, cap and trade, and modernized financial services regulation to the mix. I don’t think conservatives will be able to stop any of this, which is a good thing in my opinion.

            “unless you count the civil rights changes of the 60s as a leftist program. I didn’t and don’t.”

            How was establishment fo civil rights and ending of Jim Crow not a prorgam of the left, again with crucial help from moderates? Reagan was against it. Goldwater was against it. Buckley was against it? Who on the right was ever for civil rights for African-Americans or anyone else (today Gays) until well after the fact?

            Society has inherent contradctions that build up tensions over decades, solutions to which are always resisted by conservatives and always pushed by liberal-progressives. Things come to a head, liberals gain temporary control, put changes in place, eventually overreach, lose power, and things lock down again until he next time. Modern conservatives, instead of being satisfied with blocking progress, have convinced themselves they needed to roll things back, particularly: social security, environmental protection, taxes, and business regulation. They gained power, overreached, and opened the door for liberals. So here we are. Conservatives will get their turn again. I only hope they mature a bit before that day comes.

          • eagle eye

            The only one I would perhaps put in the category of the New Deal is Medicare. It is turning out to be a disaster, as some wise souls predicted back in the 60s, but it could still be contained in the future.

            But with what Obama is reaching for — complete takeover of medicine; unprecedented ownership/intervention in industry and finance; massive tax increases; perhaps the end of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency; massive reduction of U.S. role in world affairs — there will be no going back.

            If he had run on this platform, McCain would have won by a landslide. And all of this is just what he’s going for now. It’s shaping up as a calamity. I hope the American people come to their senses before it’s too late.

          • valley person

            “Medicare. It is turning out to be a disaster”
            Compared to what? No or unaffordable health insurance for everyone over 65? THe disaster is teh doubling of private health care costs in the past 10 years. If you want Republicans to run on eliminating Medicare, you have a long wait on winning elections.

            “But with what Obama is reaching for ….”

            He is not reaching for a complete government takeover of medicine. Far far from it. And what is the alternative to saving the entire financial inustry and what is left of our auto industry? 25% unemployment? Recall that the bailouts started under Bush. We were in free fall.

            ‘”massive tax increases”

            Massive? Hardly. So far it looks like an eventual cancelling of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest and not much else.

            “perhaps the end of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency..”

            No sure where you get that, but I agree that over time this is inevitable, no matter who is in the White House. The rest of the world will see to it.

            “massive reduction of U.S. role in world affairs ”

            If you mean militarily, it is about time. But so far Obama has shown no inclination at all to scale back US military intervention and overseas basing. I wish he would, but I don’t see it happening.

            “If he had run on this platform,…”

            He did not run on it and is not doing it. You are imagining much of this. Argue about what he is actually doing, not what you are imagining he might do.

          • eagle eye

            You are a walking billboard for American decline.

            Medicare not a disaster? Not worth discussing.

            What was the alternative? A financially responsible and sustainable program back in 1965.

            Bush saved the financial system last Fall, with the help of the Democrats in Congress. Now Obama is radically restructuring the whole economy.

            Let’s hope Americans come to their senses before it’s too late. If Obama’s poll ratings keep cratering, as the economy skids under his leadership, there’s still hope.

          • valley person

            Me a billboard? No. I’m not that photogenic.

            But seriously. What would a financially sustainable program in 1965 have looked like? Our fundamanetal problem in the US is the lack of a single payer system that can provide basic insurance to everyone, hold down costs, and allow people to buy supplimental insurance if they want it and can afford it. Medicare is a problem because we have an aging population with medical costs that can’t be restrained short of rationing. We can’t go back to 1965 ro redesign it, and we can’t take insurance away from old folks to save money. So again I’ll ask you, what would you do differently? Not liking something is fine, but what is your alternative, not in 1965 but today? Would you dissolve Medicare and let private insurance companies choose who to cover and who not to? Ration health services for everyone? What?

            “Now Obama is radically restructuring the whole economy.”

            In what way? He took majority stock ownership of 2 companies that borrowed funds from us that they could not pay back. What would you have done? Said never mind to the loans? AIG was taken over under Bush. The banks were bailed out under Bush. Other than proposing some badly needed updating to financial regulation, what is Obama doing that leads you to your conclusion? Don’t just re-state it. Given me some real examples.

            “If Obama’s poll ratings keep cratering, as the economy skids under his leadership, there’s still hope. ”

            I would turn that sentence around a bit. If the economy continues to skid, Obama’s poll ratings will crater, providing hope for Republicans who want to return to power, but not much hope for everyone else because the Republicans don;t have the first clue about what to do toher than cut taxes yet again. If the economy recovers (as it is beginning to,) Obama’s poll ratings will go up, just like they did for Reagan after his first 2 years of decline. And in that case Republicans will be out of power for a long time. Hopefully during that time they will come up with some responsible ways to govern conservatively and cultivate a few leaders with some brains.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >It’s not that they were never in trouble, it’s that they once had some power.

            Ok, I was saying I would not really think its fair to say conservatives were in power, as in in the majority, or holding great sway like large pluralities in the legislature as well as Govs office in the last 20 years.

            Yes, there were a sampling of conservatives who could block things, but I would not say that is really being in power.

            >Basically, the Republicans/conservatives are completely marginal in Oregon, except that they can block tax increases — in referenda and initiatives, not in office.

            True.

            >Basically, the Republicans/conservatives are completely marginal in Oregon, except that they can block tax increases — in referenda and initiatives, not in office.

            Sure, I would totally agree with that. Once you get people hooked on welfare its very hard to get them off. I have never, and would never, argue that in that regard the left has a far easier job. Its much easier to convince people to give up some freedom in exchange for sloth than the other way around.

            >That hasn’t happened since the 30s,

            True.

            >unless you count the civil rights changes of the 60s as a leftist program. I didn’t and don’t.

            Well, I think if you limit things in the 60’s to the civil rights program sure, not a lot of cost there as such things go.

            However there was a lot more than just that in the 60’s on the leftist agenda. We got Medicare and Medicaid for one, we also got an ethos of “welfare clients” as opposed to “welfare recipients”. Sloth was encouraged in that time in a way that was unheard of before. The entire concept of the welfare worker, in a broad sense of the term, was changed as well. It went from someone who was supposed to scrutinize eligibility, to protect the public coffers, to someone who was supposed to recruit “clients” so as to expand the program. I don’t think can be ignored.

            >Does that mean things are hopeless for conservatives nationally?

            No, I don’t think so. Clinton had to sign welfare reform or sign off on the rest of his presidency. I highly doubt that feeling has changed much in the public mind. Sure, there has been quite a bit of turning back the clock on welfare reform recently. However I think the issue still has great resonance with voters even now. My evidence for this would be the attempt to ram rod through health care reform before people catch on.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)