Idaho's New Forest Act Puts Logging Profits Ahead of Climate Safety

Idaho’s latest move to reshape its forests hit like a sudden storm. Governor Brad Little’s ‘Make Forests Healthy Again Act,’ signed in April 2025, promises a bold new era of cooperation with federal agencies to manage the state’s vast federally owned lands. On the surface, it’s a call for action: more timber harvests, mechanical thinning, and prescribed burns to curb wildfires and boost rural economies. But peel back the rhetoric, and a stark reality emerges. This executive order, cloaked in the language of forest health, tilts heavily toward industry interests, sidelining the urgent need for conservation and climate resilience.

The act builds on programs like the Good Neighbor Authority and Shared Stewardship, which allow Idaho to partner with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. These frameworks, meant to foster collaboration, are now being leveraged to prioritize logging and resource extraction over ecological balance. For those who value public lands as a shared inheritance, this approach raises red flags. It’s not just about cutting trees; it’s about what’s at stake when short-term economic gains trump long-term environmental stability.

Wildfires, fueled by a warming planet, are scorching the American West with unprecedented ferocity. In 2024 alone, nearly 9 million acres burned nationwide, with California losing over 1.1 million acres to flames. Idaho, with its 6 million acres of federal forest land, faces similar risks. Yet the state’s new plan seems to double down on policies that could exacerbate, not alleviate, these dangers. By prioritizing timber over comprehensive conservation, Idaho risks repeating the mistakes of past decades, when aggressive fire suppression and unchecked logging left forests vulnerable to catastrophic blazes.

This moment demands a reckoning. Public lands are not just resources to be tapped; they’re ecosystems that sustain biodiversity, clean water, and carbon storage. Idaho’s act, while framed as a solution, feels like a step backward, echoing a troubling national trend under recent federal policies that favor deregulation and industry over science-based stewardship.

Climate change isn’t a distant threat; it’s the driving force behind the wildfires ravaging the West. Research paints a grim picture: human-caused warming has made drought conditions 2.4 times more likely, extending fire seasons by over a month in many regions. The catastrophic Los Angeles fires of 2025 were 35% more likely due to climate-driven dryness. Idaho’s forests, already stressed by disease and fuel buildup, face heightened risks as temperatures climb and snowmelt arrives earlier. Against this backdrop, the state’s focus on ramping up timber harvests feels dangerously out of touch.

Advocates for sustainable forest management argue for a different path. The America the Beautiful initiative, launched to conserve 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030, emphasizes protecting biodiversity and bolstering carbon sequestration. Forests, when managed with care, act as vital carbon sinks, mitigating the very warming that fuels wildfires. Yet Idaho’s act aligns more closely with federal directives that prioritize deregulation, echoing the Trump administration’s push to expand domestic timber production and streamline permitting. These policies, critics warn, risk fragmenting ecosystems and undermining the resilience needed to withstand a changing climate.

Science offers clear guidance. A 2024 review found that fuel treatments like thinning and prescribed burns can reduce wildfire severity by over 60% in dry conifer forests, but only when paired with ongoing maintenance and ecological considerations. Aggressive logging, by contrast, can disrupt soil stability, harm watersheds, and reduce habitat for species already under pressure. Idaho’s plan, while nodding to prescribed burns, leans heavily on timber harvests, raising concerns that economic motives are overshadowing the broader needs of the landscape.

Supporters of Idaho’s act argue it’s a pragmatic response to wildfire risks and rural economic struggles. They point to the state’s leadership in collaborative forest management and the need to clear fuel-laden forests to protect communities. Jobs in timber and related industries, they claim, will revitalize small towns hit hard by decades of economic shifts. But this argument hinges on a narrow view of prosperity, one that ignores the long-term costs of prioritizing industry over ecology.

History offers a cautionary tale. Decades of aggressive fire suppression and timber-focused management left U.S. forests overloaded with fuels, setting the stage for today’s megafires. The early 20th century’s ‘10 a.m. policy,’ which aimed to extinguish every fire by morning, suppressed natural fire cycles, allowing dense, fire-prone forests to proliferate. Idaho’s current approach risks repeating these errors by favoring extraction over restoration. The state’s Forest Action Plan may guide project prioritization, but its emphasis on logging over comprehensive reforestation or habitat protection raises doubts about its commitment to true forest health.

Environmental advocates counter with a vision of economic opportunity rooted in sustainability. Programs like the Forest Conservation Easement Program Act offer landowners incentives to preserve forests, supporting rural economies while safeguarding ecosystems. Integrating Indigenous knowledge, which emphasizes natural fire regimes and holistic land stewardship, could further enhance outcomes. Yet Idaho’s act, with its industry-heavy focus, largely sidesteps these alternatives, aligning instead with a federal agenda that critics say prioritizes corporate interests over public good.

Idaho’s forests belong to all of us, not just those who see them as timber stockpiles. The ‘Make Forests Healthy Again Act’ may deliver short-term wins for rural economies, but its heavy lean toward logging threatens the ecosystems that sustain life across the West. Public lands are a trust, meant to provide clean water, wildlife habitat, and climate resilience for generations. To honor that trust, Idaho must pivot toward policies that balance economic needs with ecological imperatives.

The path forward is clear. Science-based management, grounded in adaptive strategies like prescribed burns and selective thinning, offers a proven way to reduce wildfire risks while preserving forest health. Federal initiatives like the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, which has treated 1.86 million acres since 2022, show what’s possible when collaboration and data drive decisions. Idaho could lead by expanding reforestation, protecting watersheds, and investing in workforce development for sustainable forestry. Instead, the state’s current plan risks deepening the divide between those who see forests as resources to exploit and those who view them as vital to our collective future.