<p>Debates over forest conservation and management in the Pacific Northwest—and beyond—are often structured by a persistent dualism that casts protection and intervention as mutually exclusive. Although this framing is not universally held, it continues to function as a dominant tendency shaping public discourse, policy debates, and, at times, scientific communication. We argue that this dualistic logic reflects a broader intellectual inheritance within Western environmental thought, in which humans and nature are conceived as fundamentally separate, with disagreement arising primarily over how each should be valued. Drawing on examples from contemporary policy processes, media coverage, and scientific debates, we show how this framing constrains the range of perceived management options by reducing complex, context-dependent questions to opposing categories. These patterns appear across institutional and ideological lines, including cases in which the dichotomy is expressed in reverse, with ecological integrity framed as dependent upon active intervention. We further suggest that the persistence of this divide reflects not only conceptual simplification but also a deeper dilemma rooted in trust. In many cases, ecologically supported management practices such as thinning and prescribed fire are simultaneously recognized as necessary and regarded with suspicion due to historical and institutional concerns. This tension limits the effectiveness of science-based solutions alone. We argue that moving beyond this dichotomy requires reframing conservation as a spectrum of practices operating across integrated landscapes, rather than as a binary choice between use and protection. While abandoning false dichotomies will not eliminate conflict, it can expand the space of possible responses to the ecological and social challenges facing contemporary forests.</p>