Forests are valuable for a wide variety of reasons, including biodiversity and carbon sequestration and storage. As such, in the U.S., various parties have proposed large-scale forest management efforts to enhance biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration. Others, in contrast, argue that forests should not be harvested and have used legal action to prevent timber harvest on public lands. However, given that modern forests in the U.S. are reduced in extent compared to pre-settlement times, are subject to a reduced rate of natural disturbances but experience novel disturbances such as invasive pests and elevated fire risk, and are out of ecological balance due to past human activities, we suggest that active management is not only aligned with forest sustainability but necessary to conserve the maximum feasible range of forest biodiversity. In many areas of the U.S., species most in need of conservation depend on open canopy or early seral forest conditions, both of which can be created or maintained by forest harvest. We suggest that forest management for wood products simultaneously produces these needed conditions, whereas setting aside forests from management only benefits a subset of biodiversity. Although areas not subjected to forest harvest are important landscape components, active management is also needed to restore once-common forest types such as oak (Quercus spp.) woodland, mitigate invasive pests, reduce fire risk, and manage for species that need early seral or disturbed conditions, which are declining on the landscape. We document the current unbalanced conditions and the need for management with a focus on the eastern U.S. to demonstrate the issues.
