Forest conservationists have a love-hate relationship with the Forest Service. Created to protect Western forests from the dangers of irresponsible private sector management, the Forest Service promised an efficient, responsive, and scientific approach. But things didn't turn out that way. Despite the rhetoric of "multiple use", political planning prevailed. That process encouraged, and often forced, overproduction of commodities at the expense of ecological and social values.

In 1989, 63 of the 120 Forest Supervisors signed a startling memo. They said, "Public values and personal values of Forest Service employees are changing....Many members of the public and many of our employees no longer view us as leaders in environmental conservation...There is a growing concern that we have become an agency 'out of control'...Change must come faster."

With timber harvests reduced to 1950's levels (roughly 73 percent of 1970's and 80's levels) the Forest Service struggles to find its place in an increasingly amenity based Western economy. Chief Mike Dombeck recently outlined his goals for the agency, "We're not going to be driven by a single interest [logging]. We're working for the long-term sustainability of the land, the integrity of the land". His boss, Jim Lyons, Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment of the USDA, envisions a future where the "lakes are full of fish, damage from past logging is healed and stream habitat restored".

Unfortunately, the agency's historic emphasis on timber production has eroded public trust. No longer willing to defer to agency professionals, the public meets every proposal with skepticism. And not without good reason. For example:

* In 1970, concerned that the Forest Service was emphasizing timber at the expense of other forest values such as recreation, wildlife and aesthetics, the Senate sponsored an investigation of management on Montana's Bitterroot National Forest. A team led by the late Arnold Bolle, then Dean of the University of Montana School of Forestry, issued a blistering report: "Multiple use management, in fact, does not exist as a governing principle on the Bitterroot National Forest....Quality timber management and harvest practices are missing. Considerations of recreation, watershed, wildlife and grazing appear as after thoughts".

* This year Oregon's Mount Hood National Forest "accepted blame" for decades of management that trashed an entire watershed. The agency proposes to spend a $5.4 million to restore the Fish Creek Drainage where logging has caused some of the "worst landslides in the region" and runs of wild salmon have "been nearly wiped out".

* In Arizona, Forest Service biologists claim bias towards ranchers has interfered with efforts to restore biologically valuable riparian areas. The report says "managers have been willing to do anything to restore riparian ecosystems as long as it doesn't affect ranchers with grazing permits".

Such actions have created a climate of mistrust, paralyzing the Forest Service. This is unfortunate and ironic. Now more than ever the nation's forests need the agency's considerable expertise. Not to "get out the cut", but to begin the long overdue work of ecological restoration.

Some of the most significant damage has been done by the agency's zeal for putting out fires. The Blue Mountains in eastern Oregon and Washington State got their name because of the smoke and haze that enveloped them during the summer. Now, they exemplify an ecosystem out of whack.

Historically, these forests of fire-resistant ponderosa pine were swept by slow, creeping fires. Fire acted like mini-maid service, clearing encroaching trees and creating an open "park-like" appearance. Over the last fifty years, Forest Service management has dramatically altered this landscape. The fire resistant pines were cut and fire virtually eliminated. In their place grew dense stands of spindly fir trees. Places where you once could ride a horse at a full gallop became almost too thick to walk through.

These "new" forests proved extremely vulnerable to insects and disease and began dying over large areas. And of course, fire could never be completely eliminated. When it returned, it was much different. The new forest, deprived of its self-cleaning service, began burning as never before. This situation created no winners. Both local economies and ecosystems suffered.

Ripping out and re-vegetating decaying logging roads, cutting trees in overly thick "dog-hair" stands, and restoring damaged salmon habitat will require intense intervention. This also has the potential to provide many of jobs for those in traditional industries (e.g., loggers and heavy equipment operators). And the Forest Service alone has the resources and organization online.

The problem is few will trust this once proud agency. If the Forest Service is to thrive or even survive in the next century, rebuilding public trust will be essential. But since people are skeptical, strong actions are required to repair damage and regain public confidence. A Century after its creation, this is the test of the viability of public forest management.