Wildfires, forest management, and climate policy
Oregon regularly faces devastating wildfire seasons that destroy homes, harm air quality, and kill wildlife. There is significant debate between those who favor aggressive prescribed burns and logging as fuel-reduction tools and those who prioritize climate mitigation, old-growth protection, and community resilience investments.
How should Oregon manage its forests and fight wildfires?
How OpenCampaign quiz-takers stand on this issue
38% call it a high-priority issue (rating it 7+ out of 10).
- Liberal43%
- Lean liberal25%
- Moderate15%
- Lean conservative6%
- Conservative11%
High-priority share over time
The high-priority share has ranged 33–54% since 2016. Election-year cohorts skew casual and under-rate every issue, so the dips around 2020 and 2024 partly reflect who took the quiz, not a shift in opinion.
Where do you stand?
How should Oregon manage its forests and fight wildfires?
How important is this to you?
✓ You told us where you stand
Sources
New initiatives would safeguard due process, protect New Yorkers from federal overreach.
Positions on this issue · liberal → conservative
- Prioritize climate action and old-growth protection; fund community resilience and wildfire prevention over logging.
- Use prescribed burns and targeted thinning on dense stands while strictly protecting old-growth forests.
- Balance prescribed burns, limited commercial thinning, and climate investments with science-based guidelines.
- Expand commercial timber harvests as part of a forest health strategy alongside prescribed fire programs.
- Reduce environmental regulations on logging and remove barriers to large-scale timber harvests to reduce fuel loads.