Ecological restoration and forest management rely heavily on an understanding of successional changes. While mid-successional stages typically support the highest concentration of life forms in most habitats, every stage of succession plays a critical role. Emphasizing old-growth stands to the exclusion of other stages is considered inappropriate because all inhabitants across these phases contribute to the ecosystem.
From a historical and practical perspective, mid-successional forests have been the primary providers of materials and food for both Indigenous populations and modern society. Ecologists generally observe that landscapes achieve peak biodiversity when multiple successional stages coexist, rather than when a region is dominated entirely by either young or old-growth forests. This concept, known as a dynamic mosaic, describes a shifting, heterogeneous landscape comprised of varying forest age classes, successional stages, and land-use types that evolve over time.
Northwest forest ecologist Jerry Franklin has argued that maintaining biodiversity in temperate regions requires the preservation of all successional stages. Indigenous peoples successfully managed this dynamic mosaic for approximately 10,000 years, a model that modern management should seek to replicate. Because a dynamic mosaic encompasses the total sum of plant and animal species occupying all stages, it holds the highest potential for species diversity.
Consequently, the notion that old growth is the sole epitome of species diversity is viewed as botanically and ecologically inaccurate. Management objectives should therefore focus on maintaining this mosaic. Furthermore, in true old-growth stands, a significant portion of the species consists of saprophytic organisms that feed on dead material. These organisms can be sustained under various management scenarios, suggesting that their preservation does not require an exclusive focus on unmanaged old growth.
Shifting Forest Management Paradigms Reflect Evolving Ecological Realities
Environmental organizations, such as the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, Oregon Wild, Conservation Northwest, Audubon Society, Earthjustice, Silvix Resources, and more recently the League of Women Voters, have long championed conservation efforts rooted in the philosophies of early naturalists. While their intentions remain strong, their strategies increasingly prioritize preserving or restoring historical forest conditions, sometimes at the expense of actively managing today’s ecosystems.
Foundational figures like John Muir and Aldo Leopold mounted their campaigns in response to severe ecological disruptions during the Exploitive Era, when practices such as hydraulic mining and unregulated logging reshaped landscapes. Their advocacy was well-founded for that period, but the ecological context has shifted dramatically over the past century. After a brief interval of moderate forest stewardship, the region entered a 46-year phase marked by minimal intervention, a period now yielding measurable consequences.
Recent data from the U.S. Forest Service shows that national forest growing stock stood 72.6 percent higher in 2022 than in 1953. Had the U.S. maintained a steady 1.5 percent annual net growth from 1850, the year widespread Indigenous fire management began to decline, forest biomass would have expanded by more than 400 percent. This suggests current fuel accumulations are roughly 4.5 times greater than under pre-colonial Indigenous stewardship, a dynamic that may explain the escalation in wildfire intensity and forest degradation in recent decades.
A compelling case in point is Whidbey Island, documented as having been significantly deforested by repeated, low-intensity burns conducted by Native communities. Once dominated by open meadows and savannas, the island transitioned into dense Douglas-fir stands after fire suppression took hold, illustrating how quickly second-growth forests can reestablish after active Indigenous burning wanes. Historical records indicate that Coast Salish peoples used the island as a hunting ground, with deer abundant and fire applied annually to improve forage and visibility.
Experts now argue that contemporary forest health demands a recalibration of management priorities. With mounting evidence pointing to the limitations of hands-off approaches, many conclude that active stewardship, tailored to regional conditions, is essential across nearly all federal lands, except those formally designated as wilderness.
Don Healy, a Lynnwood resident and 1968 graduate in Forest Management from Oregon State University, has watched these developments closely. With a decade of field experience followed by decades of continued study, he offers a perspective shaped by both scientific training and long-term observation of forest policy shifts.