Management of riparian habitats is controversial because land use policies have historically emphasized economic values (e.g., timber production) at the expense of ecological and social values. Attempting to manage these valuable resources to attain the greatest combination of benefits has created a long-term controversy that continues to the present. Our analysis indicates that at mid to large spatial scales, healthy riparian ecosystems and land management activities are not mutually exclusive, but the degree of compatibility is determined by policy decisions based on competing demands and pressing timelines as well as available scientific knowledge. Current management schemes on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska are appropriately addressing large spatial scales and incorporating the principles of disturbance ecology. We found no scientific evidence that either the default prescriptions or the options for watershed analysis in the Northwest Forest Plan and Tongass Land Management Plan provide more protection than necessary to meet stated riparian management goals. We believe that additional alternative riparian management strategies could be implemented and evaluated in concert to shorten the time needed to realize effective strategies that fully meet riparian management goals.