“The Pros and Cons of Allowing More Logging in National Forests”

“The Pros and Cons of Allowing More Logging in National Forests”


The question of whether to allow increased logging in our national forests has been debated for decades. Proponents argue that logging creates jobs and provides valuable timber resources, while opponents counter that it can harm ecosystems and reduce recreational opportunities. In this article, I aim to provide an in-depth look at the key pros and cons of allowing more logging in national forests.

Background on National Forest Logging

The United States has 154 national forests covering 190 million acres of public land. The U.S. Forest Service manages these forests and allows timber companies to harvest trees through sales of logging contracts.

  • Currently, around 3 billion board feet of timber are logged in national forests each year.
  • Logging supporters argue that the total could be increased substantially without harm.

National forests were originally set aside partly to provide a steady supply of timber. However, priorities have shifted over time towards recreation and conservation. The Forest Service must balance competing interests under its “multiple use” mandate.

The Pros of Increasing National Forest Logging

Economic Benefits

  • More logging means more local jobs in rural areas near national forests. The timber industry employs loggers, truck drivers, mill workers and more.
  • Logging revenues help fund the U.S. Forest Service, reducing reliance on taxpayer money. More revenues mean more resources for forest management.
  • Logging provides low-cost timber for domestic use. This helps the U.S. forestry industry compete against imports.

Reduced Fire Risks

  • Removing excess timber reduces the risk of large, severe wildfires. Fires are a natural part of many forests, but decades of fire suppression have left some overgrown.
  • Logging creates fire breaks – strips of thinned forest that slow fire spread.

Forest Health

  • Careful, selective logging can improve forest health by:
  • Removing dead/diseased trees
  • Thinning dense growth
  • Clearing space for new tree growth
  • Some argue that actively managing forests is better than simply leaving them alone.

The Cons of Increasing National Forest Logging

Environmental Impacts

  • Logging equipment and road-building harm local ecosystems. Effects include:
  • Soil erosion and compaction
  • Water quality reduction from sediment
  • Wildlife habitat loss
  • Even selective logging alters natural processes. Old-growth trees store more carbon.

Loss of Recreation Opportunities

  • National forests provide recreation for millions of visitors. Increased logging would limit:
  • Hiking and camping access
  • Hunting and fishing habitats
  • Aesthetic appeal of forests
  • Road-building also fragments wildlife habitats.

Timber Industry Concerns

  • Much national forest timber is low-value pulpwood. The industry wants more access to larger, more valuable trees.
  • There are concerns logging revenues currently don’t cover government administration costs. Profits may require cutting more than is sustainable.
  • Some argue subsidized national forest timber undercuts private landowners ability to compete.

Slippery Slope Risks

  • Conservation groups worry increased logging could put forests on a “slippery slope” where:
  • Timber takes priority over other uses
  • Short-term economics outweigh long-term ecosystem health
  • Access to old-growth stands is eventually approved


Increasing national forest logging presents difficult trade-offs between economic benefits and environmental risks. While logging advocates make reasonable arguments, conservation groups have legitimate concerns regarding impacts.

Going forward, a balanced compromise may be found through careful planning by the Forest Service aimed at limited, truly sustainable increases in timber harvests. However, stakeholders on all sides must be willing to move beyond entrenched positions.

The debate involves complex scientific, economic and ethical issues. But maintaining America’s national forest legacy for future generations should remain the guiding principle.