I cannot help but wonder why Kate Lindroos Conlin felt compelled to write her recent My Turn piece titled “Denying Science Kills Species.” She implies that forest advocates want to end all logging, but I am not hearing anyone say that. Perhaps she is referring to a bill we submitted two years ago, which would permanently designate our Massachusetts public lands as reserves, with protections similar to National Parks.

Ms. Lindroos Conlin calls us dangerous. The real danger is to continue the status quo, where only 1% of Massachusetts is permanently off-limits to logging and other intrusive management. In fact, science is telling us that natural, standing forests are vital, not only for our climate, but also for wildlife and our own health. Those who claim otherwise, who find no harm in actively logging almost all of our forests, are the true science deniers.

There is growing scientific consensus that the only way to prevent runaway global warming is to not only reduce burning of fossil fuels, but also to allow forests to grow back wherever possible to absorb and store carbon from the atmosphere — termed proforestation. Protecting such intact forests maximizes carbon storage while logging releases carbon and fuels climate change.

Ms. Lindroos Conlin seems to think that the pioneering forest ecologist, Aldo Leopold, advocated logging forests to maintain biodiversity. In fact, the opposite is true. Leopold was a founder of The Wilderness Society and in 1924, he convinced the U.S. Forest Service to designate the 559,000-acre Gila Wilderness — the first such preserve in the world. He understood that protected forests offer the best chance of “keeping every cog and wheel” of nature.

A century later, there is abundant scientific evidence that Leopold was right. Growing numbers of biologists, such as Dr. E.O. Wilson, are calling for the preservation of one-half of the Earth to save endangered wildlife. The Harvard Forest recommends protecting 7% of New England as “wildlands” where “nature prevails.” Massachusetts state land agencies have designated 3% of the state as parks and reserves with no logging and other development — a positive step, but these areas are not permanent.

It is strange that Ms. Lindroos Conlin considers it racist to give our public forests — which only cover 13% of the state — protection comparable to National Parks. Neuroscientists, such as Dr. Susan Masino, have shown that contact with unspoiled nature is tremendously beneficial to human health and well-being. Far from being racist, our forest protection proposal is vital to people of color who are victims of environmental injustice — including a lack of access to the natural world. Intact forests benefit everyone, in not only urban, but also in rural communities.

I agree that ignoring the needs of the natural world has gotten us into quite a mess. But human attempts to “manage” nature only make the problem worse. We need more places where we allow nature to take her course, without interference from us. This is what science is telling us, and we should have the wisdom to listen.

Please support a moratorium on logging on our state lands, which would give citizens a chance to look more carefully at these issues. A link to our online petition can be found at savemassforests.org.

Michael Kellett, a resident of Lincoln, is executive director of RESTORE: The North Woods, a regional nonprofit organization based in Massachusetts.