Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 390.010 (2026)

Policy of state toward outdoor recreation resources

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      390.010 Policy of state toward outdoor recreation resources. The Legislative Assembly recognizes and declares:

      (1) It is desirable that all Oregonians of present and future generations and visitors who are lawfully present within the boundaries of this state be assured adequate outdoor recreation resources. It is desirable that all levels of government and private interests take prompt and coordinated action to the extent practicable without diminishing or affecting their respective powers and functions to conserve, develop, and utilize such resources for the benefit and enjoyment of all the people.

      (2) The economy and well-being of the people are in large part dependent upon proper utilization of the state’s outdoor recreation resources for the physical, spiritual, cultural, scientific and other benefits which such resources afford.

      (3) It is in the public interest to increase outdoor recreation opportunities commensurate with the growth in need through necessary and appropriate actions, including, but not limited to, the following:

      (a) Protection of existing and needed open spaces for appreciation, use and enjoyment of Oregon’s scenic landscape.

      (b) Provision of adequate land for outdoor recreation.

      (c) Preservation and restoration for public enjoyment and education of structures, objects, facilities and resources which are examples of Oregon history, archaeology and natural science.

      (d) Development of a system of scenic roads to enhance recreational travel and sightseeing.

      (e) Encouragement of outdoor activities such as festivals, fairs, and events relating to music, dance, drama, art and sports.

      (f) Expansion of facilities for camping, picnicking and lodging in or near recreational areas and along routes of travel.

      (g) Provision of tourist hospitality centers, which may include informational services, sanitary facilities, camping and picnicking areas at points near major highway entrances into the state.

      (h) Provision of trails for horseback riding, hiking, bicycling and motorized trail vehicle riding.

      (i) Development of waterways, land and water facilities for recreational boating, hunting and fishing.

      (j) Development of all recreation potentials of the several river basins, compatible with programs of water use enunciated by the Water Resources Commission.

      (k) Provision for access to public lands and waters having recreational values.

      (L) Encouragement of the development of winter sports facilities.

      (m) Encouragement of programs for recreational enjoyment of mineral resources.

      (4) It is in the public interest that all efforts be made through research, education and enforcement to the end that Oregon’s outdoor recreation resources will be used under the highest standards of conduct.

      (5) It shall be the policy of the State of Oregon to supply those outdoor recreation areas, facilities and opportunities which are clearly the responsibility of the state in meeting growing needs; and to encourage all agencies of government, voluntary and commercial organizations, citizen recreation groups and others to work cooperatively and in a coordinated manner to assist in meeting total recreation needs through exercise of their appropriate responsibilities. [Formerly 184.310]

 

VIOLATIONS ENFORCEMENT

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1974–2011 · leading case: Van Gordon, Etc. v. Portland Gen. Elec., 652 P.2d 817 (Or. Ct. App. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Van Gordon, Etc. v. Portland Gen. Elec., 652 P.2d 817 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “" See also ORS 390.010. To further that goal, the legislature enacted ORS 105.”
Liberty v. State, 116 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “” ORS 390.010(3)(d). Thus, even under plaintiffs’ proposed reading of the statute, using a *619 state highway for recreational purposes would trigger the immunity provided in ORS 105.”
Liberty v. State, Dept. of Transp., 116 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “" ORS 390.010(3)(d). Thus, even under plaintiffs' proposed reading of the statute, using a state highway for recreational purposes would trigger the immunity provided in ORS 105.”
Van Gordon v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 662 P.2d 714 (Or. 1983). “660 and ORS 390.010. The Court of Appeals, in a 5-4 decision, held that the trial court erred in failing to grant PGE’s motion to dismiss or its motion for a directed verdict, holding that as a matter of law PGE’s actions did not amount to recklessness.”
Loney v. McPhillips, 521 P.2d 340 (Or. 1974). “The need for preservation of and access by the public to the state's land and open space resources is further recognized by the following legislative policy enactments: "ORS 390.010 Policy of state toward outdoor recreation resources.”
Van Gordon v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 667 P.2d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 1983). “660 and ORS 390.010. * * *” 294 Or at 764 . The first of those assignments was rejected by the Supreme Court.”
Kelly v. Hochberg, 217 P.3d 699 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “Plaintiff insists that, if travel is regarded as recreational, then immunity will attach to any liability arising out of incidents in which individuals merely look out of their car windows as they drive down a public highway.”
GUNDERSON, LLC. v. City of Portland, 259 P.3d 1007 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). “14, which states, in part: *630 “(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that, to protect and preserve the natural, scenic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River, to preserve and restore historical sites, structures, facilities and objects on lands along the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 390.010(3)(d) — 3 cases
Liberty v. State, 116 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “” ORS 390.010(3)(d). Thus, even under plaintiffs’ proposed reading of the statute, using a *619 state highway for recreational purposes would trigger the immunity provided in ORS 105.”
Liberty v. State, Dept. of Transp., 116 P.3d 902 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). “" ORS 390.010(3)(d). Thus, even under plaintiffs' proposed reading of the statute, using a state highway for recreational purposes would trigger the immunity provided in ORS 105.”
Kelly v. Hochberg, 217 P.3d 699 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). “Plaintiff insists that, if travel is regarded as recreational, then immunity will attach to any liability arising out of incidents in which individuals merely look out of their car windows as they drive down a public highway.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.