Face-to-face replaces in-your-face.

With forest-policy tensions high, the Seventh American Forest Congress was faced with a tough challenge: Hold four days of roundtable talk that dodged the fireworks and still remained productive.

"A shot in the arm for a flagging democracy," was how one clearly inspired participant summed up his roundtable discussions, one of 140 group meetings held in the large ballroom of a Washington hotel during the Seventh American Forest Congress, February 20-24.

The other 1,500 participants may not have put it so dramatically, but their active involvement, and their commitment to continue face-to-face dialogue on a Saturday morning after three full days of work, was powerful proof that this meeting - with dialogue as the agenda and finding common ground the goal - was a success.

This was the first Forest Congress' to focus on citizens rather than practioners. Previous congresses - held between 1882 and 1975, and organized by AMERICAN FORESTS (then the American Forestry Association) - came at critical times in the nation's history and focused attention on the evolving role of forests in our lives. The premise this time was that that those who disagree on today's forest policies could still agree on long-term goals. Organizers were hopeful that a forum to explore "common ground" could begin a collaborative process that would eventually address more contentious issues.

Ninety local roundtable and collaborative meetings preceded the congress in communities from La Grande, Oregon, to Savannah, Georgia. Like the Congress, they attracted participants from a range of forest interests: landowners, urban forest activists, corporate managers, loggers, tree huggers, ecosystem scientists, and concerned citizens. Planned by a board of over 50 individuals co-chaired by John Gordon of Yale and Rex McCullough of Weyerhaeuser, the Congress was supported by over 200 organizations including the Wilderness Society, International Paper, the National Woodland Owners Association, and AMERICAN FORESTS.

At the end of the first day, Tamara Van Ryn of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests was concerned that the process would not work. Two days later, she reported that she and her tablemates "dropped our guard," rolled up their sleeves, and made real progress toward helping produce a vision for America's forests in the next century, as well as principles and "next steps" to begin moving toward that vision.

Bryant Smith, a young urban forestry organizer from Baltimore, echoed those feelings, saying he "noticed a lot of people here with different concerns. In the beginning we bumped heads, but now we are working together to form a big plan."

The Seventh American Forest Congress came at a time of increasing polarization around forest issues, and no one was really sure what form disagreements would take. The contentious timber-salvage rider, passed last summer by the U.S. Congress (see story on page nine), prompted the most controversy, with threats of demonstrations and walkouts that never materialized.

Participants were each assigned to a table where they sat with others of varying viewpoints. Each group discussed issues before the Congress and individual support was periodically tallied. Items received colored ratings - green meaning "I support this item," yellow meaning "I have concerns, but I can live with this," and red meaning "I cannot accept this."

Sixty-one principles were developed and discussed, culminating in a vision statement of 13 components. The element receiving the greatest support read: "Our forests will be held in a variety of public, private, tribal, land grant, and trust ownerships by owners whose rights, objectives, and expectations are respected and who understand and accept their responsibilities as stewards" (90 percent green, 7 percent yellow, 3 percent red)."

Support was generated for concepts of public and private investment, forest restoration, biological diversity, community well being, and policy and management based on sound scientific principles and sustainability.

As for principles relevant to the timber-salvage rider, changes in laws affecting management of public lands through "an open legislative process that allows the airing of views by the public" and "the special importance of existing old-growth forests" were favorably recognized, receiving negative tallies of only 20 percent each.

Many participants refused to let the rider, and the press interest it generated, rule the day. "There are other issues at this Congress," asserted Sandra Hill, Washington, DC's urban forester and a Congress organizer. "There are urban, there are rural, there are ethnic diversity issues. These are changing times in America and this affords us an opportunity for people from all regions and all races to come together to talk about issues." Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas told the Associated Press,"the thing I am impressed with is the conversation. They're not just sitting there with their arms crossed, jaws jutted, yelling 'No way'."

Participants heartily agreed. And most agreed to "ensure that open and continuous dialogue is maintained and encouraged among all parties." If this happens, the Congress' legacy will be a lasting one.

The Second American Forest Congress, in 1905, provided the platform and impetus for establishing the national forest system that continues to profoundly influence the way we view and manage our forests today While the Seventh American Forest Congress is not expected to directly influence national policy, it may be the catalyst for thousands of grass roots dialogues and new partnerships from which a great deal of good could emerge. Could a citizen-shaped forest policy be up and running by the year 2005? One hundred years after the Forest Congress of Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot would probably be just about the right time for the Eighth American Forest Congress.

Dan Smith is AMERICAN FORESTS' vice president for communications.