What A National Forest Actually Allows That A Park Doesn't

No matter how much time they spend outdoors, nearly everyone has heard of America's national parks. However, these aren't the only protected federal areas. Among the numerous designations, one of the most commonly found is the national forest, which shares some characteristics with national parks, but also have some important differences. Before planning a visit to one, it's vital to understand what a national forest allows that a national park does not.

What is a National Park?

The first national park was established over 150 years ago, with the creation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872. The National Park Service came later in 1916, when the Organic Act specified that parks and other NPS properties should "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." They're overseen by the National Park Service, part of the Department of the Interior.

What is a National Forest?

Although national parks may get most of the attention, national forests are nearly as old, dating back to 1891's Forest Reserve Act. Unlike national parks, they're managed by the U.S. Forest Service, an agency of the Department of Agriculture. This important difference speaks to the biggest difference in underlying philosophy between them. National forests are managed under the "multiple use" principle, where they not only offer recreational opportunities beyond those permitted in carefully preserved national parks, but are also open to logging, mining, and other resource-related industries that are managed according to specific conservation rules.

Activities Allowed in National Forests but not National Parks

From a practical perspective, there are a few notable things that are allowed in a national forest that are typically strictly regulated or banned entirely in national parks.

Hunting

In many national forests, hunting is permitted, as long as hunters abide by federal, state, and local rules and regulations, including following prescribed hunting seasons. It's one of the best examples of the recreational and resource-based approach that national forests take to their inhabitants, both animals and plants. This is a stark difference from preservation-oriented national parks, where hunting is only allowed in areas specifically designated by federal law. However, it's worth noting that some areas of national forests can also be closed to hunting, so it's vital to review the rules at a particular site before making plans.

Some examples of national forests known as top hunting destinations include Colorado's White River National Forest, where visitors can hunt elk, deer, moose, grouse, and even black bear, and Ohio's Wayne National Forest, popular for turkey and small game.

Logging and collecting forest products

Although it might sound strange, national forests can actually be chopped down, at least in part. The Forest Service balances multiple objectives when managing these public areas, including allowing limited commercial timber sales and the collection of forest products. Don't imagine it's just big companies chopping down trees, either. Many national forests are also prime spots for everyday people to harvest Christmas trees, firewood, mushrooms, and more for personal use. This is far rarer and more strictly controlled in true national parks, where removing resources, plants, or animals is only allowed when necessary or specifically given an exception from the rules.

Boise National Forest in Idaho is a good example of one of the numerous national forests that manages limited timber sales, while Montana's Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest showcases individual opportunities, with personal firewood and mushroom harvesting permits.

Livestock grazing

In areas where national forest land intermingles with privately owned ranching and farming land, it's not uncommon to see public lands opened up for grazing and as rangeland. The Forest Service administers thousands of permits for grazing on National Forest System lands, carefully monitoring them to ensure this potentially destructive private activity doesn't harm the long-term health of these public spaces. Although there's no universal prohibition on commercial livestock grazing in national parks, it's uncommon and limited to narrow circumstances and exceptions, rather than the broad availability of national forests.

National Forest visitors are most likely to see this in action in western public lands, including Arizona's Prescott National Forest, which has nearly 60 grazing allotments. It's also common in New Mexico, where rural communities with extensive cattle ranching heritage graze cows and calves in Santa Fe National Forest.

Mining and mineral extraction

Another resource-focused difference between national parks and national forests is that the latter allows private mining and mineral operations. These public lands contain everything from rare and valuable gold, silver, copper, and uranium to plentiful sand and gravel. This category also covers exploration and drilling for oil, gas, coal, and other energy resources. The legal picture is more tangled than with logging or grazing, though. Hardrock minerals such as gold and copper fall under the 1872 Mining Law and its claim system, energy leases for oil, gas, and coal are handled together with the Interior Department, and the Forest Service mainly manages surface impacts and the sale of common materials like sand and gravel. In contrast, national parks typically do not allow mining or prospecting outside of already existing mineral rights, except when specifically allowed by law.

Tonto National Forest in Arizona is a good example, with a long copper-mining history and the proposed Resolution Copper project, which cleared a contested federal land exchange in 2026 but has not yet begun operating.

Off-highway vehicle use and forest-road access

National forests also tend to offer far more freedom for off-road motorized recreation than national parks. The Forest Service maintains extensive networks of designated roads and trails where visitors can use motorcycles, ATVs, side-by-sides, four-wheel-drive vehicles, and other motorized vehicles. That doesn't mean riders can simply head off in any direction, though. Each forest publishes maps showing exactly which roads and trails are open, what types of vehicles are permitted, and whether seasonal rules or restrictions apply. National parks generally take the opposite approach, with off-road driving prohibited in most units and allowed only in specifically designated areas.

Colorado's Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests are a good example of the Forest Service model, offering designated OHV routes for motorcycles, ATVs, and other vehicles.

Fewer Restrictions and More Activities in National Forests Across the Country

In general, it's easy to see one overall trend in the differences between national parks and national forests. National forests tend to allow more varied uses, with the stated goal of balancing recreation, commercial use, and preservation. On the other hand, national parks are built around preservation and public enjoyment together, setting aside the commercial and extractive uses that national forests allow.

There's no single right answer to which of these two important categories of public land is best. However, visitors should be aware of the differences and choose their destinations with these vital distinctions in mind.