The problem with leaving forest “to nature,” as many seem to want to do, is that we can’t control the outcome. We get what nature serves up, which can be pretty devastating at times. But with forestry we have options, and a degree of predictability not found in nature.

Dr. Alan Houston, Forester and Wildlife Biologist, Ames Plantation, Grand Junction, Tennessee, Evergreen, October, 1997

Waiting for nature poses a greater risk of large-scale ecosystem destruction than the risks associated with small-scale human intervention. Our region’s forests have a history of frequent, violent, large-scale disturbance. If we walk away and leave these forests to nature, we run the risk of losing the very ecosystems we are trying to preserve. Moreover, we have no assurance that forest set asides will actually grow older. There is a greater probability they will burn up or blow down first.

Dr. Chadwick Oliver, Silviculturist, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Evergreen, September 1993

Letting nature take its course in these forests implies a willingness to accept the consequences of catastrophic fire. I am unwilling to accept the ecological consequences of huge, unnatura fires. We can’t restore the forests that were here 150 years ago, but we can restore the natural processes that created them, and that is what we are trying to do in our research work.

Dr. Steve Arno, Fire Ecologist, USFS, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory  Missoula, Montana, Evergreen, Winter 1994

People who think doing nothing in forests is the best way to provide habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species may be fooling themselves. Forestry provides the only means for predicting and controlling the outcome. Forestry is a tool for imposing equilibrium in an otherwise chaotic natural world. By controlling the limits of natural disturbance, we produce outcomes society wants: timber, wildlife habitat, clean water and beautiful forests. Nature is indifferent to society’s needs. Forestry tries to fill needs.

Dr. David Loftis, Project Leader, USFS, Bent Creek Experimental Station Asheville, North Carolina, Evergreen, October 1997

Misconceptions about naturalness are seriously eroding the public’s ability to deal effectively with land. The undisturbed old-growth landscape many envision never existed, and the quest to achieve it is undermining science-based efforts to restore a range of more viable growing conditions. The public is loving its forests to death.

Dr. Edward Buckner, Overton Professor of Forestry, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Evergreen, October 1997

You don’t have to return to pre-settlement forests to see the likely result of a ban on harvesting. The years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996 were big fire years in the Intermountain west. They provide very visible evidence of what happens when forests are neglected: severe fires in ponderosa pine forests that historically had lower intensity burns, major losses of fish and wildlife habitat and degradation of air and water quality. [Minus some form of management in the forests we will witness more] large damaging firs, a futile fire fighting effort costing hundreds of millions of dollars and possibly taking firefighter lives, and massive insect and disease infestations.

Dr. Steve Arno, Fire Ecologist, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, USFS, Missoula, Montana, Evergreen, Winter 2000

For ecological, biological and moral reasons, I oppose the ban on timber harvesting in National Forests. Those who support the ban seem to believe it will prompt natural restoration of pre-settlement forest conditions. I think that is highly unlikely. Biologically speaking, eliminating harvesting, while continuing to control wildfires, would have significant adverse effects on bird and mammal species that thrive on early succession forest conditions.The Yellowstone fire was a wakeup call for many scientists, including me. Unless we soon begin the long process of dealing with diseased forests that are prone to very hot stand-replacing fires – restoring natural ecosystems as we go – Yellowstone-scale fires are a serious probability. I know many people distrust thinning, fearing a return to the days when too much harvesting was occurring in National Forests, but I don’t see how it could happen. Far greater risks lie in accepting the idea that the best way to protect National Forests is to set them aside in no-harvest reserves. I’m a wilderness fan and would favor adding appropriate lands to the Wilderness system, but major portions of the National Forest System are not suitable for Wilderness designation and ought to be managed for multiple benefits, including commercial timber production.  

Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, retired Chief, U.S. Forest Service, now teaching at the graduate level at the University of Montana School of Forestry, Missoula, Evergreen, Winter 2000

The proposed ban on harvesting – however well intended – chases an unachievable ideal. It says that if we leave forests alone the result will be a more natural landscape. But reality presents a much different picture. Our forests are byproducts of 12,000 years of dominance by Native Americans, mainly through their use of fire. Removing human influences – by imposing a harvest ban in National Forests – would have horrendous impacts on native forests and species. Many early and mid-succession plant and animal communities would be lost, creating very unnatural landscapes, a significant decline in biological diversity and a significant increase in the size of wildfires, resulting in further losses to native forests.

Dr. Tom Bonnicksen, Professor of Forestry and noted author, Texas A&M University, Evergreen, Winter 2000