A field guide to timber trespass statutes in the Pacific Northwest

The Pacific Northwest is where timber trespass law grew up. Standing timber was the region's original wealth, and both Oregon and Washington wrote statutes with real teeth to protect it. Those statutes now apply just as readily to a row of backyard firs as to a commercial stand.

Oregon — ORS 105.810

Oregon's statute provides treble damages for the willful cutting, injury, or removal of trees on another's land without lawful authority. The elements are straightforward:

• The plaintiff owns (or has a legal interest in) the land.
• The defendant cut, damaged, or carried off trees, timber, or shrubs from it.
• The defendant lacked lawful authority to do so.

Willfulness is what unlocks the treble award. Oregon courts have read "willful" to mean intentional and deliberate, not merely negligent — but they have also been clear that a defendant who proceeds without checking a boundary, after being told where it is, has acted willfully. The companion provision, ORS 105.815, reduces the award to double damages where the trespass was casual or involuntary, or where the defendant had probable cause to believe the land was their own.

Washington — RCW 64.12.030

Washington's statute is a close cousin. It awards treble damages for cutting or removing trees or timber on another's land without lawful authority. RCW 64.12.040 provides the mitigation: single damages only where the trespass was casual or involuntary, or where the defendant had probable cause to believe the land was theirs.

Washington adds a wrinkle that matters for valuation. The state's courts have accepted restoration cost — what it would take to return the property to its prior condition — as a measure of damages in residential cases where the trees had personal rather than commercial value. That measure can run well above stumpage value.

The willful / casual line in practice

In both states the fight is rarely over whether the trees were cut. It is over the defendant's state of mind. Facts that tend to establish willfulness:

1. The line had been surveyed, staked, or flagged before the cutting.
2. The owner had communicated the boundary in writing.
3. The defendant was a professional (a logger, a developer's contractor, a utility crew) who would be expected to confirm the line.
4. The cutting extended well past any plausible boundary error.

Traps to avoid

• Statute of limitations. Confirm the applicable period early; some claims sound in both statute and common-law trespass with different clocks.
• Easements. Utility and access easements can supply the "lawful authority" that defeats the claim — but only within the easement's scope.
• Election of remedies. Plead the statutory count alongside common-law trespass and negligence so the case survives a willfulness finding going the wrong way.

Statutory summaries are illustrative and current as of publication. Verify the text and controlling case law before relying on any of this. Not legal advice.