How U.S. forests look 100 years from now depends on the decisions we make today.

Most Americans sit on the side of forest management debates. As long as they can buy lumber and vacation in forested mountains, all must be right with the world.

But nearly 12.5 million acres have burned in the West in the past five years. Lumber demand, meanwhile, is at an all-time high.

Too often after fires, we watch valuable timber simply rot.

Look at Julian outside San Diego, or around the Giant Sequoia National Monument where the McNally Fire burned 150,000 acres.

The difference between reforesting charred landscapes and leaving them alone to let nature take its course can be stark. Private forestland owners harvest dead trees after fires to accelerate the return of a healthy forest. They plant native-species seedlings, minimize erosion and provide diverse wildlife habitat.

But on public lands, it's a different story. In many places where private land abuts public forestland, a distinct property line emerges with green trees on one side, shrubs and charred sticks on the other. Without reforestation, forestland conversion to brush field may be permanent, or the return of forests delayed a century or more.

Often, doing nothing after a catastrophic fire can cause the greatest harm to soils and waterways. Post-fire rain can lead to mass erosion. Charred trees falling on their own can increase future fire danger.

Removing dead trees and creating a landscape where trees can grow is a critical first step in restoration. But timing is everything.

Fire-killed trees rot and lose value quickly. Charging forestry companies to harvest some dead trees they could sell to sawmills would generate revenue to fund reforestation. But delays can be fatal.

Delays from "analysis paralysis" and scientifically unfounded appeals of plans can cost taxpayers millions. After two fires in the Tahoe National Forest in 2001, the Forest Service estimates delays cost about $5 million in lost revenue. Consequently, reforestation that could be self-funding goes largely undone.

For most of the past half-century, charred forests were harvested and replanted as a matter of course and common sense. Many forests today are the result of post-fire restoration. Today, the Forest Service tries to restore only a small portion of charred lands and most of those efforts are blocked.

We have the science and technology to harvest, replant and manage forests after a significant burn safely and efficiently. We can renew forestland while providing diverse wildlife habitat and helping to meet demand for wood.

Are our other options really preferable? Should we leave hillsides blackened? Stop using wood in favor of non-renewable materials like concrete and steel?

The Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act being debated in Congress is an attempt to return common sense to forest restoration and expedite forest recovery. It doesn't relax environmental protections, but accelerates decision-making and public review processes to create a more efficient system to regenerate forestland.

We have the means to save our forests. Let's fix the system.