Numerous studies have examined the preferred approaches of various actors in Germany regarding the management of degraded forests and forestry under climate change. These studies often portray forestry and nature conservation as opposing perspectives. This paper analyzes the positions of actors from both groups on current forest dieback in Germany by evaluating information on their websites. Using framing theory, the study investigates the perspectives of 27 actors, focusing on diagnostic (e.g., ‘causers’, ‘victims’) and prognostic (e.g., ‘helpers’, ‘instruments’) framing. The results indicate that different actors frame the current forest dieback in varying ways. Consequently, this paper discusses various options for grouping actors based on their framing. We propose to categorize the actors according to their distinct framing of the identified causers of the current forest dieback and the practical instruments for addressing the damaged forest areas. Two groups can be identified. The first group comprises actors who mention both natural factors and human activities as causers in nearly equal proportions. In terms of instruments, they slightly favor passive approaches over active ones. The second group consists of actors who more frequently cite natural factors than human activities. Regarding instruments, they exclusively mention active approaches. In addition to this dichotomy, approaches involving multiple groups are also discussed. Although only a relatively small number of actors were included in the analysis, the results provide new insights into the complexity of the current discourse surrounding forest dieback.