We humans tend to focus on our differences, rather than similarities. And many of our political institutions function on that basis: Election campaigns stress real and invented differences between candidates; 51% of the vote wins, and receives 100% of the representation. After public hearings, resource agencies often decide for one side, or the other, or their own side. And in court, you win or lose.

Differences of opinion about national forest stewardship, and the “winner take all” structures, have led to decades of polarization among our citizenry and near paralysis on the ground. Over time, responsible people on many sides of forest issues concluded the present system was failing – failing our timber workers and timber-dependent communities, failing the ecological health of our forests, failing our responsibility to future generations. That left a question: Despite our differences, could key parties come to the table to see if there was a “zone of agreement” we share, a common ground set of ideas we could and build on to generate positive work on the ground?

In August, 2006, Artemis Common Ground invited nine people from industry, the conservation community, US Forest Service, state of Montana, and the non-profit sector to explore that question. After an all day meeting, everyone concluded that common ground might be created around the idea of on- the- ground restoration: work to restore the health of our national forests. The group formed a Steering Committee whose mission was to engage more community interests in an effort to develop Restoration Principles and an action plan to have those implemented on the ground.

In January, 2007, thirty-four representatives of conservationists, motorized users, outfitters, loggers, mill operators, state government and the Forest Service held its first meeting at Lubrecht Experimental Forest, facilitated by the National Forest Foundation. All present agreed the restoration goal was worth pursuing; they agreed to work by consensus—meaning that everyone had to agree before a proposal was accepted; they set August 1 as the deadline to finish their work; and they all personally committed to help get the job done.

The group contained long-time adversaries, and the effort was not easy. Success depended on honesty, ability to listen, to disagree respectfully, and most centrally, on learning how to focus on building the “zone of agreement”. In such a process, loggers do not become environmental activists and conservationists do not change into timber mill managers. People retain their different perspectives—but they develop the ability to be able to say, “We disagree on these issues over there. But we can agree on this specific point. Let’s start with that, and see if we can broaden areas of agreement, and if successful, figure out a better way to make good things happen on the ground”.

That is what the Montana Forest Restoration Working Group did. At their last meeting, August 1, 2007, all recommendations were given final, unanimous approval. Next, the group agreed to change its name to the Montana Forest Restoration Committee (MFRC)—reflecting its new mission to see that the approved Restoration Principles and Implementation Plan are put into practice.

Finally, members of the group were asked if they wanted to continue to be involved in the effort by serving on the new MFRC. Every person in the room raised their hand.

The materials that follow reflect the integrity, commitment and honorable work of all those people. The job before all of us now is to work together to achieve good restoration work on the ground.