Should successful management of the lands be based on following the rules and regulations, or on the results?

There is a lot of support for an approach to managing public lands that emphasizes and encourages good results for the land, the wildlife, their habitat, as well as the people that use the land, regardless of what means are employed to reach these good results.

CJ Hadley
Editor, Range Magazine

• Cattle are not the problem, it is management that is the problem.
  
  

Thomas, Cawley, Chenoweth-Hage exchange

• Defining consensus, growth of the conflict industry, and a big difference between chickens and pigs.
  
  
  

Wally Butler
Regional Manager, North Idaho and Rangeland Specialist, Idaho Farm Bureau

• Standards become a wedge . . . breeding these conflict industries.
  
  

Thomas, Andrus exchange

• Standards and guidelines are cop-outs . . . we could even talk about doing away with fees.
  
  

Thomas, Cawley exchange

• Analysis paralysis, and questions about closure on the planning process.
  
  

Dan Dagget
Environmentalist with EcoResults! and author of Beyond the Rangeland Conflict

• How can we change this from this false choice, either/or, to make this really about the land, and the health of the land?
  
  

Dave Rittenhouse
Supervisor, USFS

• These are not new issues, they're not new conflicts, we don't seem to [be able to] do anything to change it.
  
  

Gregg Cawley

• Conservation and preservation are not interchangeable terms.
  
  

Jack Ward Thomas

• What is forest health? Let's turn a national forest loose with no regulations.
  
  
  

John McCarthy
Conservation Director, Idaho Conservation League

• There are a lot of things that can be done to improve situations for communities, for wildlife, for water quality, but I say these things come with a price tag.
  
  

Mark Pollot
Attorney

• At what point do we say, "You have to share!"